Hundreds of members of Congress started the new year with an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to “provide clarity” on abortion.

Anyone looking for a solid refutation of Roe would be disappointed. The brief makes no mention of the urgent duty to save the thousands of children lost to abortion daily. Nowhere is the Constitution’s equal protection requirement invoked. Nowhere is any advocacy made for the unborn child and his right to life.

Instead, the brief calls upon the Court to revisit its “undue burden” standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), and to possibly “overrule” abortion precedent “if appropriate.” It criticizes “the ‘right to abortion’ found in Roe v. Wade,” but only for its “haphazard” application.

The brief is all about defending state regulations on clean clinics and competency in those hired to kill a child. We see a long apologetic for regulations designed to kill the child with sterility and efficiency, under the guise of the duty of governments to “safeguard the lives and health of their citizens.” The use of the word “citizens” is an example of lawyerly fine print: it leaves out unborn children, who are not constitutionally considered official citizens until birth (a fact that has no bearing on the right to life).

To stop wasting everyone’s time, and to play a valuable part in ending the eugenic war against America’s most vulnerable children, the brief should have argued that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that “No State shall . . . deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These protections are required by the Amendment, without regard to birth or citizenship status.

The brief should have stated that “person” is defined by the opening paragraph of the U.S. Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (Emphasis added)

No interpretation of the Constitution is valid contrary to these written purposes. Our Constitution plainly regards our “posterity” (a word that includes unborn children) as equal to ourselves.

Although the amicus brief suggests a timid review of Roe, the lack of moral logic in this request leads to an immoral result. For, if no one will assert the child’s right to life, the only refining to be done to Roe is to make abortion more accessible, less regulated, and to further elevate the mother as we dehumanize her child.

Down this road, we find ourselves stuck at the dead end that has pitted America against itself for half a century. Without equal protection, there is no protection. Without the right to life, there are no rights. Without security for posterity, there is no future for America.

To get out of this destructive rut, we must boldly assert that protecting children is always the only “appropriate” route. And we must be clear that arguing for the sterile killing of babies is always inappropriate, immoral, and unconstitutional.

Siena Hoefling
Siena Hoefling is the Executive Director for Equal Protection for Posterity

2 thoughts on “Another dead end: the Republican “pro-life” amicus brief

  1. OK, I accessed the link to the full brief, provided at the close of the third paragraph of the article and read it.

    It is, first, an appeal for Louisiana state’s right to set health and safety standards for elective abortion. With a long list of serious health and safety violations by Louisiana abortion clinics and professional disciplinary actions and substandard medical care by Louisiana abortion doctors, the brief shows what I have known all along, that Roe v Wade legalized and dramatically increased numbers of back alley clothes hanger abortions, now called safe, legal, and rare abortion “clinics.”

    Secondly, it is at best a meekly stated desperate grab at a straw that is embedded in the concrete of the SCOTUS Stare Decisis Doctrine. “Amici respectfully suggest that the court’s struggle—similar to dozens of other courts’ herculean struggles in this area—illustrates the unworkability of the “right to abortion” found in Roe and the need for the Court to take up the issue of whether Roe and Casey should be reconsidered and, if appropriate, overruled.”

    Note to all who believe that the Democratic Party owns total responsibility for the abortion abomination: The Roe v. Wade majority was made up of five Republican appointees, and two Democrat appointees, and the following quote, excerpted from Wikipedia regarding the SCOTUS case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade as constitutional, should correct that misunderstanding.

    “The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion decisions in the United States. It was the first case to provide an opportunity to overturn Roe since two liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, had been replaced with the Bush-appointed Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were viewed, compared with their predecessors, as ostensible conservatives. This left the Court with eight Republican-appointed justices—six of whom had been appointed by Presidents Reagan or Bush, both of whom were well known for their opposition to Roe. Finally, the only remaining Democratic appointee—Justice Byron White—had been one of the two dissenters from the original Roe decision.”

    1. Art, thanks for your comment.  Republican complicity in abortion is generally overlooked.  I have a lot of material on this subject, which I hope to share at a future date.  

      It seems the Republicans who gave us Roe also intend to keep abortion going forever. At least, that is the result of the Republican push for more clinic regulations. This route is immoral and doomed to fail, as it further entrenches abortion by implicit sanction.  Regulations infer legitimacy—a legitimacy that cannot exist in premeditated murder.  By nature, clinic regulations elevate the woman to the status of “patient” and diminish her own culpability in the crime.  As soon as we’re talking “safe abortion,” we’re proposing a contradiction in terms.  We might as well say “peaceful violence.”  The victim of that violence is always the child, no matter how careful or skilled or sterile the method used to take his life.  

      We could say the more government regulates and facilitates abortion, the more culpable our entire nation is in the death of the child. 

      The amicus brief falls into that trap. It treats the child as a non-entity as it advocates “enforcement of health and safety standards for elective abortion.”  

      Such an approach only chains us to an endless abortion loop.  The only way out is to simply reject the dehumanization of Roe and enforce equal protection for every child, as the Constitution requires.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *