Root Out The RINOs banner.jpg

The Left’s Hypocritical Use of the 14th Amendment to Justify Murdering Babies


During the Supreme Court oral arguments over abortion in Dobbs v Jackson, the rabid pro-murdering babies attorney attempted to use the 14th Amendment to claim bodily autonomy means the mother has the right to murder her child. The hypocrisy is that they don’t protect the bodily autonomy of the unborn, nor do they believe you have that right when it comes to the vax.


Do women have the Constitutional Right to murder a baby in the womb after 15 weeks? That is the question posed to the Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson case. A lot of conservative pundits have already weighed in on this case, but I wanted to take a slightly different approach than what I’ve heard others talk about.


During the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas brilliantly pushed U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar on her justification that abortion is a constitutional right. The reality is that Justice Thomas exposed the flaw in their argumentation without even having to explicitly state it.


Here’s the transcript of their back and forth:


Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Prelogar on what the specific "right" is that she's defending: "Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?" Thomas asked.


"The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas," U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said. "But I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term."


Thomas responded: "I understand we're talking about abortion here. But what is confusing is that we -- if we were talking about the 2nd Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the 4th Amendment, I know what we're talking about, because it's written, it's there. What specifically is the right here that we're talking about?" Thomas asked again:


"Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the court in those other contexts with respect to those other amendments has had to articulate what the text means in the bounds of the constitutional guarantees, and it's done through a variety of different tests that implement 1st Amendment rights, 2nd Amendment rights, 4th Amendment rights.


"So I don't think that there is anything unprecedented or anomalous about the right that the court articulated in Roe and Casey -- and the way that it implemented that right by defining the scope of the liberty interest by reference to viability and providing that that is the moment when the balance of interest tips, and when the state can act to prohibit a woman from getting an abortion based on its interest in protecting the fetal life at that point."


"So the right specifically is abortion?" Thomas asked.


"It's the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy, yes.”


"Thank you," said Thomas, ending that portion of his questioning.


The Solicitor General made the claim that the 14th Amendment is the foundation of making abortion a constitutional right. However, when you look at the text of that specific amendment, you’ll see that it’s actually the best argument AGAINST abortion.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Banning abortion would not infringe upon any person’s stated constitutional rights. No one has a Constitutional Right to not get pregnant if they have unprotected sex. In fact, having liberty means that you also are responsible for your actions. In this case, if you have unprotected sex, you then responsible for the pregnancy that can follow.


So if there’s no constitutional rights being violated by banning abortion, let’s look at the flip side.


If you allow abortion, the rights of the baby in the womb are violated when aborted. It’s been scientifically proven that life begins at conception, as the baby has its own unique DNA and genetic code. Thus, it is not a part of the mother’s body, but its own separate being.


This means that if you abort the baby, that child is being murdered and its constitutional rights of “life, liberty, or property” are being violated.


On top of that, they did nothing wrong. They did not ask to be created. In fact, it was the decision of their parents who practiced their own freedom and liberty in having unprotected sex, which can result in creating life in the womb. The baby is completely innocent of any wrong doing. Any attempt to take its life qualifies as pre-meditated murder.


In closing, I’d like to show you how the Solicitor General unknowingly justified the passing of the Mississippi law. When pressed about whether a mother has a right to get an abortion, she responded with: “It's the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy.”


Her chosen word of viability is something that most pro-baby murder proponents tend to avoid. This means that the baby could survive outside of the womb. At 15 weeks, the baby is approaching the age of when doctors say they can survive outside of the womb.


If the Left is going to say that viability is the standard, then they should be perfectly fine with banning abortions at that point. Yet, they aren’t going to concede on that point. It just goes to show that they have no principles. Their standard is that the ends justify the means.


So when they talk about a woman’s right to murder their baby, they’ll say it’s because of the 14th Amendment, which actually proves the opposite. They’ll claim they only want abortion before the baby is viable outside the womb, but when push comes to shove they want to murder babies all the way up to birth.


It all comes down to the fact that the Democrat Party is the anti-God party. They absolutely hate God and His principles laid out in Scripture. They devalue life at every opportunity. They are so rabidly anti-life that they’ll say and do anything in order to be able to murder babies at will. Understand that this is what we are going up against: An ideology that want to murder the innocent and protect the murderer.


Sponsor:


Big Tech is using you as their product, stalking your every move on the internet and even your location and then selling that to advertisers. Clearly, Silicon Valley hates conservatives, but they're still profiting off us at record amounts. It's time to cut them off at the source!


Order a Freedom Phone, which will ensure that your data is not given to third party apps unless you explicitly and intentionally give them permission. Use code MAGA for $50 off at http://freedomphone.com



6 views0 comments

Sponsors

Our-Gold-Guy-Square-2.jpg
Z-Stack-Square.jpg
Freedom First Coffee
Screen Shot 2022-07-25 at 10.49.18 AM.png
BECOME A SUBSCRIBER TODAY!-4.jpg

Recent Shows

Kay Rubacek Warns What a Communist America Will Look Like if We Continue on the Current Trajectory

Bianca Gracia Reveals how Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan for Israel and Palestinians was his Downfall

Clay Clark: Biden’s Executive Order 14067 is Codifying Luciferianism 

Latinos for Trump President Bianca Gracia Believes There May be a Reason God Doesn't Want Trump to be President

GETTR’s Director of Media Affairs Sonny Joy Nelson on Big Tech Censorship, the Mid-Terms… and Flat Earth & UFOs!