Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Law, Citing Apparent Constitutional Right To Abort Children

in Politics by
   

It’s amazing that people still take the Supreme Court seriously. Americans mock lawyers often for their high paid egos and ability to twist the law to their bidding, but in the end, it’s unelected lawyers that shape the entire basis of modern law. The Constitution takes a backseat whenever the lifetime tenured lawyers enter the picture.

imgres-1  Supreme Court strikes down Texas law, citing apparent constitutional right to abort children imgres 1 9

Now the Supreme Court has struck again, this time striking down a Texas law limiting abortions to those with medical credentials to do so. Under the law, doctors performing abortions would have to have admitting privileges at hospitals and clinics for the purpose of maintaining hospital-like conditions.

Medical safety is apparently overrated, as is the life of an unborn child.

On the one hand, this is appalling. The Supreme Court is openly attempting to make death row for unborn children more efficient than death row for convicted criminals. The former is defenseless and unable to make a case for life before execution, the latter at least saw their day in court.

On the other hand, this is completely unsurprising. What accountability do the Supreme Court justices have to the American people? They don’t. The entire United States legal system is a parody of it’s own existence. The President doesn’t know where his boundaries are, Congress sits on the chamber floor playing on Periscope, and the Supreme Court makes up the law as they go.

It would appear that the Supreme Court did not take the life of the child into consideration on the ruling. The idea that every human being has a right to exist and be free was not considered.

This is the same Supreme Court of the United States that ruled in Dred Scott v. John F. A. Sanford that Africans are not free and Congress had no right to free these human beings. Why? Because they were not considered humans, but property. Thus, because they had been dehumanized, neglecting their rights was easy for unelected legal bureaucrats to do.

young-korematsu  Supreme Court strikes down Texas law, citing apparent constitutional right to abort children young korematsu

This is also the same Supreme Court of the United States that ruled in Fred Korematsu v. United States that rights can be stripped simply because of heritage. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American who refused the Executive Order from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordering people into camps based on their heritage. He was held because of his heritage by an executive order, not because a judge declared Korematsu or any other Japanese-American guilty of working for the Japanese.

The issue at hand is the right to exist and the right to be free within that existence. Korematsu had that stripped because of his heritage, just as Dred Scott did. Skin color alone lost it for Scott and having a Japanese heritage did for Korematsu. No actual crime had been committed, government just simply declared their rights null and void out of pure racism. But this was an easy pill for all involved to swallow, because those affected were being demonized and dehumanized.

After the treatment of Africans and Japanese-Americans, now unborn American children are the next subject of the Supreme Court’s lawless behavior. Whether they justify it or not with some sort of perversion of the Constitution, it is still wrong. Predictably, just with Scott and Korematsu, the unelected legal bureaucrats got it wrong when they had a chance to help protect unborn children from being killed.

Chris Dixon is a liberty activist and writer from Maine. In addition to being Managing Editor for the Liberty Conservative, he also writes the Bangor Daily News blog "Undercover Porcupine" and for sports website Cleatgeeks.