As the United States Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to determine the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy, let us acknowledge that the ramifications of any eventual ruling will have a far-reaching effect on the future of our U.S. Constitution.

The case…

In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which prohibits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions for fetal abnormalities and medical emergencies.  Both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the law was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedents in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, both of which recognized the constitutional right to pre-viability abortion.

Mississippi then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, urging the Court to sustain its law.  In 2021, the Court agreed to hear the case, and on June 22, 2021, Mississippi filed its merits brief urging the Court to overrule Roe and Casey.  On September 20, 2021, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

What the Supreme Court must decide has only a tangential connection with women's rights and the "so-called" right to an abortion. It is about the Supreme Court's fidelity to the United States Constitution, which is the framework for our unique and exceptional government.

The issue is simple as 1-2-3...

(1).  The United States Constitution is crystal clear. 

Under the Tenth Amendment (Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791.) which is the last Amendment in the Bill of Rights... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

(2).  Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the subject of abortion OR THE MEDICAL TREATMENT OF CITIZENS mentioned or contemplated. 

(3). Therefore, the subject of abortion is a matter that either belongs to the states or to the people.

Most objections concerning abortion are associated with religious activity, including the absence of religion (atheism) and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Again, the U.S. Constitution makes it crystal clear that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Hence, the law must take note of and respect religious exemptions, and accommodations for those constitutional activities occurring within the individual states

As for those who suggest that stare decisis (acting according to precedent) should be respected, I can argue that several Supreme Court decisions were bad decisions and were prima facie unconstitutional.

• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal."
• Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II.

Liberal comments during oral arguments made to influence Chief Justice John Roberts and which have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution…

Consider uber-liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s comment…

“It is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure,” Breyer said, citing Casey. “To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason, to reexamine a watershed decision, would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”

Huh? Again with the tortured and convoluted language. It appears that Breyer is advocating that the Court keep the unconstitutional precedents of Roe and Casey because to overturn them would look like the Court is bowing to political pressure and would severely damage the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. This is pure political bullpucky – you don’t continue bad laws based on how the media might spin the narrative.

Consider the comment of the most-left member of the Court, Associate Justice Sonia “the wise Latina” Sotomayor…

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?”

Under Justice Roberts, that is what most people already believe as the evidence points to that very conclusion.

And, consider the echo of the liberal Associate Justice Elena Kagan…

Kagan said it was important to “prevent people from thinking that this Court is a political institution that will go back and forth depending on what part of the public yells loudest and preventing people from thinking that the Court will go back and forth depending on changes to the Court's membership.”

Do you see the pattern? The liberals are not arguing the law, but how the Court’s actions might appear to the liberals and their propagandists in the mainstream media.

I believe these comments were targeted at Chief Justice John Roberts who appears afraid to do anything that might cast a shadow on the “Robert’s Court” – which has already been compromised by his wishy-washy positions that were definitely not the result of reasoned Constitutional textualism.

Roberts appears to be attempting to craft a consensus opinion to avoid controversy rather than applying textualism to the matter at hand.

The complication of competing rights…

Assuming that the matter is no longer a federal issue, the next legal challenge is to balance the rights of an unborn child against the rights of the mother--  requiring the consideration of the inalienable, constitutional, and civil rights of an unborn child: when they are established, do they require a court appointment of an advocate, and how those rights are to be weighed against other interests, primarily those of the mother.

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh put it succinctly,  “You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time. And that’s why this is so challenging.”

Bottom line…

To continue the sham of Roe v. Wade, Casey, Obamacare, and other cases which tortured the language of the Constitution to create non-existent rights out of whole cloth, is to weaken our Constitution, and by extension, our exceptional nation.

If the federal government is allowed to go beyond the U.S. Constitution to define new rights, it certainly has the implied power to limit, modify, or nullify such rights -- including the inalienable rights arising from "Natural Law."

In the final analysis, any federal abortion law or mandatory medical treatment, especially those that can have life-altering consequences or result in death -- the ultimate denial of your civil rights is, per se, unconstitutional.

Moral, medical decisions are between you and your God, with informed consent proffered in consultation with a competent medical professional or trusted advisor.

We are so screwed when the Supreme Court fails to uphold its sworn duty to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

And isn't it amazing how the left embraces body sovereignty with respect to abortions, but not for forced mandated vaccinations of unknown efficacy?

-- steve