JUDICIAL ARROGANCE - SUPREME COURT
United States Supreme Court
Roe v. Wade Decision
Justice Byron White's Dissent
In his dissenting opinion in Roe vs. Wade,
Justice Byron White writes, “At the heart of the controversy in these cases are
those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health
of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one of one or more of a
variety or reasons—convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children,
the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for
any one of such reasons, or for no reason, at all, and without asserting or
claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at
her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the
procedure. The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the
period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the
United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother
more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore,
guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking
to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of
the mother. With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or
history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply
fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S.
222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that
right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion
statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States
are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the
continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a
spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise
of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today;
but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the
power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”
The deceased Justice White, in his dissent in
Roe vs. Wade, speaks to the erroneous logic and false jurisprudence exercised by
seven of the nine members of the Supreme Court in 1973.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Unborn Child Amendment
Unborn Child
Amendment Book
*Donations are not
tax deductible.
