Freedom: Restoring Faith in the Constitution

This is going to be short. Short because there is not much more to say when you detail the legal and factual truth. Saturday’s WSJ (the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal) noted on its editorial pages:

The Lancet exhorts this week that, ‘The fact is that if the US Supreme Court confirms its draft decision’ overturning Roe v. Wade, ‘women will die. The Justices who vote to strike down Roe will not succeed in ending abortion, they will only succeed in ending safe abortion. Alito and his supporters will have women’s blood on their hands.’”

The Lancet is one of the nation’s preeminent medical journals. It like other “professional” journals and professional organizations (the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the American Trial Lawyers Association, etc.), has also become highly politicized over the last three decades. But more importantly, it is a medical journal and those writing in it don’t know diddly squat about constitutional law. My father (a lawyer – yes, we were all lawyers in my family) used to rail about one of the doctors in our small town:

I wish that know-it-all would shut up and listen to those of us who actually do know it all.”

And while it was said tongue-in-cheek, there was that irritant of truths that lingered. In a nutshell – just because you are educated and hold an advanced degree in a particular field does not make you an expert in all the other fields. And in the particular case of this article in the Lancet, the authors should either stick to their field of expertise or acknowledge that this is their political opinion unsupported by any scientific or legal evidence.

In the first instance, the justices supporting the draft opinion do not have any intention of ending abortion – they even acknowledge it in the opinion. Their intention is crystal clear – it is to return application of the United State Constitution to the rule of law. As I have said before, there is not a single reference to abortion in the Constitution. The majority invoked the imaginary penumbra of rights to reach its conclusion and in doing so violated the very essence of a constitution drafted to impose restraint on the federal government.

At the time of the decision in Roe v. Wade abortion was banned or highly regulated in every state in the union BY EACH STATE’S LEGISLATURE. That is exactly what the founders of the Constitution anticipated when they included in the founding document the Tenth Amendment:

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.

Thus, the fact that the Constitution made no mention of abortion, meant it was left to the states and their citizens to make decisions relating to abortion. They had done that. But the Supreme Court thought they were wrong and thus created a mythical standard that could not be defined and could not be seen – penumbra of rights. And in doing so ignored the plain meaning of the Tenth Amendment.

In fact, the state legislatures – even while Roe v. Wade was enforced – continued to enact legislation dealing with abortion. Some states sought to impose limitations while other states sought to ensure that the effect of Roe v. Wade was codified into their state’s laws.

That’s what the Constitution envisioned and that is what the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito confirms.

And here is the irony of the whole mess. The liberal/progressives imposed abortion on every state and their citizens by judicial fiat – the single most anti-democratic action that could be taken. And now that the Supreme Court is on the cusp of removing that fiat – that mandate – it is all somehow a blow to democracy. Only in the Through the Looking Glass dystopia of the liberal/progressives could an unconstitutional mandate such as Roe v. Wade be embraced as the “will of the people” while an act to return authority to the states and their citizens such that they can determine the “will of the people” regarding abortion is viewed as anti-democratic, fascist, racist, sexist, and the rest of the liberal/progressive litany which they hurl at everyone and everything with which they disagree.

And if you have any doubt about the position of the liberal progressives, please note that they immediately introduced legislation to “federalize” the issues, codify Roe v. Wade, and bar any state from enacting any thing that may vary from Roe v. Wade. That’s right. The liberal progressives still do not want people to have a choice, for state legislatures to enact variable solutions and for democracy to raise its proud head once again. No, if you are looking for fascism look no further than the liberal/progressives in the Democrat party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Squad leader Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and Vice-president Kalamata Harris (D).

But all of this gives us a glimmer of hope. The Supreme Court revitalizing the Tenth Amendment and negating the decision in Roe v. Wade as bad law, parents retaking control of their schools in Virginia and other places, Elon Musk demanding that free speech means free speech for all as he takes over Twitter and finally, Netflix telling their childlike employees (who have been pushing the “woke” agenda) to grow up and realizew that they are not entitled to safe spaces, they cannot quash speech with which they disagree, and that if they cannot live with differences of opinions they should seek employment elsewhere. Choices have consequences – including losing your job.

I haven’t turned out the marching band yet, but I am warming up my trumpet.