It overrules the 1973 ruling that was based on an anti-scientific statement

Historic ruling of the US Supreme Court on abortion: this is what it says

Just as it was leaked in May, today the US Supreme Court has published its ruling repealing the legal aberration it approved in 1973 on abortion.

USA: the arrival of the abolition of an atrocity as deep-rooted and inhuman as slavery was
Abortion: the new Ku Klux Klan that emerges in the US and again with the same party behind it

The pro-abortion ruling of 1973 denied that life began before birth

That aberration, embodied in the ruling of the Roe v. Wade case (1973), consisted of denying the condition of persons to certain human beings, even denying them their right to live, affirming abortion as a constitutional right, despite the fact that the Constitution of the United States does not affirm in any of its sections that there is any right to kill unborn children. What’s more: the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1866 and ending slavery, stated that nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

The Roe v. Wade ruling denied this right to unborn children by stating that “the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” That ruling substantiated this statement by denying scientific evidence: “the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn.” Many years ago science showed that human life begins at the very moment of conception, so that ruling made abortion legal with an anti-scientific lie.

The Supreme Court corrects that sentence in accordance with what the Constitution says

Today the Supreme Court has corrected that legal aberration with the publication of the ruling in the Dobbs case against Jackson Women’s Health Organization (see PDF). The key argument used by the Supreme Court to overturn its 1973 decision is not based on an affirmation of the unborn child as a subject of rights, but rather criticizes the imposition of a vision that denies their condition as a person, despite the fact that The Constitution says nothing about it. This is what the Court says on pages 38 and 39 of the judgment:

Hoy el Tribunal Supremo ha corregido aquella aberración jurídica con la publicación de la sentencia del caso Dobbs contra Jackson Women’s Health Organization (ver PDF). El argumento clave que ha esgrimido el Tribunal Supremo para revocar su decisión de 1973 no se basa en una afirmación sobre el niño por nacer como sujeto de derechos, sino que critica la imposición de una visión que niega su condición de persona, a pesar de que la Constitución no dice nada al respecto. Esto es lo que dice el Tribunal en las páginas 38 y 39 de la sentencia:

“Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth. The dissent, by contrast, would impose on the people a particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin. According to the dissent, the Constitution requires the States to regard a fetus as lacking even the most basic human right—to live—at least until an arbitrary point in a pregnancy has passed. Nothing in the Constitution or in our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt that “‘theory of life.’”

It must be said that the Supreme Court has not adopted a pro-life position, but rather sticks to what the US Constitution says, which does not address this issue. In fact, far from wanting to close the debate on abortion through this new sentence, what the Supreme Court rejects is that it was intended to close this debate with the 1973 sentence, affirming something that the Constitution did not say. This is what the judgment published today on pages 68 and 69 says:

Neither decision has ended debate over the issue of a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Indeed, in this case, 26 States expressly ask us to overrule Roe and Casey and to return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives. This Court’s inability to end de- bate on the issue should not have been surprising. This Court cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settle- ment and telling the people to move on. Whatever influence the Court may have on public attitudes must stem from the strength of our opinions, not an attempt to exercise “raw judicial power.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 222 (White, J., dissent- ing).

We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and de- cide this case accordingly.

We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the peo- ple and their elected representatives.”

This sentence gives free rein to the states to make pro-life laws

Thus, this sentence does not mean the abolition of abortion in the US, but rather that the regulation of abortion in that country will be a matter that will correspond to state legislatures and federal legislators. Many states in the US are already passing pro-life laws, so now they will not have any legal barriers to doing so from the Supreme Court, which is an improvement over the previous situation.

The states in which the Democratic Party (openly pro-abortion) has a majority will continue to legislate in favor of abortion, just as that party legislated in favor of the so-called “right” to own slaves when it was hegemonic in the southern states in the 19th century, before the Civil War.

Hopefully the day will come when the scourge of prenatal murder is totally abolished, just as slavery was (remember that as a result of the ruling that legalized abortion, between 1973 and 2021, 62.5 million unborn children were murdered in the USA), but for that he would make a constitutional amendment that expressly protected the right to life of unborn children, just as it happened in 1866 with the right of former slaves to be free.

Photo: Valesha Wilson.

Don't miss the news and content that interest you. Receive the free daily newsletter in your email:

Comment on this post:

You must login to comment. Click here to login. If you have not registered yet, click here to sign up.