Wednesday, September 26, 2018
John Rutledge represented South Carolina as a delegate at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. He may not have had the influence of a Madison over the overall document, but Rutledge was important because he represented the slave South and was able to secure compromises that would protect the institution of slavery. Rutledge was put in charge of the Committee on Detail and he led four other delegates while the rest of the delegate broke for an eleven-day recess. The goal of the Committee was to “properly dress” the “principles and outlines of a system” of government that was already agreed to by the delegates. In other words, it was the Committee’s responsibility to write the first draft of the Constitution. However, Rutledge would use the committee to implement new resolutions and ideas that were never discussed and agreed upon by the convention: especially on slavery. The committee was to take all agreed to resolutions and formulate a plan of government. But Rutledge saw an opportunity and seized on it. Also on the committee were Nathaniel Gorman of Massachusetts, Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and Edmund Randolph of Virginia. Four of these men were distinguished lawyers, Randolph would be Attorney General and Wilson, Ellsworth and Rutledge would serve on the Supreme Court. Wilson and Rutledge already crafted the three-fifths compromise earlier in the convention. The three-fifths compromise allowed slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person for allocating representatives for the House of Representatives and also for calculating direct state taxes. Randolph was indecisive so it is easy to see how the slave owner could be influenced by Rutledge. Wilson was willing to compromise over slavery as his three-fifths proposal with Rutledge demonstrated earlier in the convention. Ellsworth was an anti-slavery delegate, but he helped align a small-states and slave-states compact at the convention so small states could gain equal representation in the Senate by supporting passage of the three-fifths compromise. Ellsworth would argue slavery is an issue to be decided by the States and it should be of no concern to the National government. Ellsworth wrongly believed that morality would eventually rule the day and the institution of slavery would eventually die. Ellsworth conceded if the issue over slavery was a moral one then all slaves should be free, but that was not what was being contested at the convention. The Committee defined eighteen enumerated Powers for Congress. Wilson, responsible for the final committee draft and a proponent for a strong national government did not favor limiting Congress to enumerated powers so he drafted the “necessary and proper” clause. Wilson also included eight limits on State governments. Wilson also rewrote the Supremacy clause to make sure Congress and the Courts had some power over the States. Wilson was instrumental to define federalism in how State governments and the National government would be reconciled in the Constitution: both were sovereign, but the national government can trump state governments. The committee also introduced the resolution that slave trade could continue perpetually without any import tax on slaves. Eventually the convention agreed to a twenty-year limit with a maximum ten-dollar tax per slave. This was important because it allowed another 170,000 slaves to be imported from Africa to grow the institution before President Jefferson ended the practice after the twenty-year moratorium ended. The Rutledge committee also introduced the navigation acts (interstate and foreign trade) which declared all legislation on the subject must be approved by a two-thirds majority in Congress. This was done to protect the South from high freight costs. In a compromise to end the two-thirds majority the South garnered its final slave provision: the fugitive slave clause. Rutledge had succeeded in obtaining three key slave protections: the three-fifth clause, the slave import clause, and the fugitive slave clause without even mentioning the word “slavery” in the text. The North felt they did well by compromising on these issues, but the fact remains that Rutledge “hijacked” the Constitution. The North compromised over issues that were never agreed to by the full convention. The three-fifths clause was the key provision. With the extra 10 to 30 seats the South would garner over the next 50 years, it changed history: Ten of the first fifteen presidents were slaver owners (for instance, John Adams would have defeated Jefferson in 1800 if not for the extra Southern electors); nineteen of the first thirty-four Supreme Court Justices were slave owners; and Southerners held the Speaker of the House position 35 of the first 50 years. This clause wielded the South with power to sustain the practice of slavery. Since the South controlled Congress, they always failed to pass a direct State tax that was to offset their Representative gains. John Rutledge’s coup d’état at the National Convention was slick because he accomplished his goals single handedly. He sided with small states and then hijacked the first draft of the Constitution. The rogue Rutledge introduced new provisions into the Constitution that were never discussed or approved by the states or delegates. He then compromised on these issues to garner even more power for the slave wielding South.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
In my view both slavery and abortion are evil. Of course, many would contend that that only slavery is evil. I am of the impression that abortion may be worse than slavery for the following reasons: Though brutal and inhumane, slavery was not genocidal but abortion is genocidal. After all, slaves were of no value dead. Since Roe v. Wade (1973) over 60 million babies have been aborted. That is the equivalence of nearly 20% of the US population today. That is right, one in five Americans do not exist because they were aborted. In the history of America, the number of abortions can be estimated at more than 100 million. And this does not include abortions using birth control contraceptives that act as abortifacients. Anywhere from 1.5% to 3% of fertile women obtain an abortion each year. Over the history of slavery in America there have been over 20 million slaves. At the end of the civil war, there were nearly a half million slaves in Virginia alone. At the first U.S. census in 1790 the number of slaves in the United States was approaching 700,000. Abortion is final, bondage in slavery was not necessarily the final outcome. About 6 to 7% of slaves earned their freedom through emancipation by the owner, escaping, payment, or even favorable court rulings for being brought to free states for a considerable time period. And there is little corroboration of facts or statistics to suggest that ancestors of slaves living in the U.S. would have been any better off, as a whole, if slavery did not exist and they lived in their Native Africa. Even poor African-Americans are afforded welfare and other entitlement benefits that would hardly be available in most African nations. Although discrimination still exists, modern America views African-Americans as a protected class of citizens subject to preferential treatment for education and jobs. Throughout the history of slavery many slaveowners saw it as a necessary evil, but did not agree with the practice. Justice Taney who handed down the controversial Dred Scott decision freed his slaves decades earlier. Most of the Virginia founders struggled with the issue of slavery. Madison, Washington, Jefferson, Mason, Randolph, Monroe, and Wythe all owned slaves but talked about institution as being “cruel” and how it “tramples on the rights of human nature”. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution drafted and signed by many of these same men never mentions slavery and were important documents that eventually led to the end of the practice of slavery. Southern courts routinely ruled in favor of slaves gaining their freedom when they were moved to free states or territories for a long period of time. Southern judges owned slaves, but they too realized the institution was a necessary evil. Abortion on the other hand has always been seen as being both moral and just because it is mistakenly considered a Fundamental Right under the Constitution. Remember, slavery was also mistakenly seen as a Fundamental Right (property) under the Constitution in the Dred Scott decision (1857). Abortion rights advocates do not see the activity of abortion as being the least bit controversial. They do not see anything wrong with abortion being used as a tool for population control or for eugenics ideas and philosophies the movement was founded upon. The bottom line is it was not uncommon for slave owners to be morally and ethically conflicted whereas abortion advocates seem to have no moral conscience or ethical compass. Slavery discriminated against African-Americans, but abortion also discriminate against African-Americans. African-Americans make up 13% of the population but make up 42% of the abortions. Abortions mostly discriminate against the poor who make up over 75% of all abortions. Maybe abortion seems to be a better option than a lifetime in bondage. But the lives of slaves did not go for naught. The sacrifices made by slaves was just as important to US and World history as was the sacrifice of American soldiers fighting in not only the Civil War to free slaves, but any war to overcome the evils of Nazism, communism, or terrorism. Unfortunately, abortion was founded under the same ideals and principles of Nazism, socialism, and anarchism. It is sad that we never learn our lessons from history and hopefully some day we will come to the realization that the sacrifice of over a hundred million babies is enough genocide and we will finally put an end to the practice of abortion except under extreme circumstances (which compromise of less than 2% of all abortions).
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
Ziegler contends that the abortion movement was not race driven and the modern movement abandoned its radical view of population control. Let’s say Ziegler is right, the abortion movement deemphasized radical philosophies such as population control and racial overtones following the Roe decision. This does not mean these are no longer supported views, it simply means these radical views were no longer needed for tactical support of the movement since it already won in the Supreme Court. Besides, a movement founded on eugenics, racism, and population control does not make it okay if those views are deemphasized in the modern movement. What if slavery still existed but modern laws protected slaves so owners could not beat them; slaves had to be paid a fair wage; and slaves had more rights such as the right to vote. Would this make a “modern” slavery movement any more acceptable? Of course not. Abortion, like slavery, is stigmatized in our history and for good reason. However, no one can dispute the fact that abortions affect African-Americans and the poor disproportionately. African-Americans make up 42% of all abortions, but consist of only 13% of the population. This was the vision and mission of Margaret Sanger and the pre-Roe movement which has come to fruition. I do not see any pro-abortion rights persons concerned about this statistic nor do I see them concerned about how abortion may violate the Equal Protection clause because it disproportionately affects minorities. Sure, the Court found abortion legal through substantive due process as a right (not in support of racism or population control). But the Court also found slavery legal in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) via substantive due process. In other words, anything can be found legal via substantive due process depending on the opinions of the Justices sitting on the bench at the time. The bottom line is that abortion and slavery were both founded on hate, discrimination, and other radical views and they are therefore not much different. Abortion rights advocates were still pushing ideas and philosophies used by Nazi Germany 30 years after World War II. Consider that for a moment: the feminist abortion movement was precisely based on “war crimes” that nearly exterminated a race of people. And if the Supreme Court did not side with the abortion movement in Roe, these ideas and philosophies would have continued to be used for many more years. The abortion movement was and is radical. It was founded and supported by socialists and anarchists. Radical opinions, ideas, and philosophies may have been deemphasized but they still exist and that does not change the fact abortion was founded and practiced under radical terms. Consider the below interview with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In a 2012 interview Ruth Bader Ginsberg gave the following responses to questions about feminism, abortion, population control, and eugenics: Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda? JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don't know why this hasn't been said more often. Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women? JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. What does this mean? It means that population control and racism were at the forefront of the abortion movement. If the abortion movement was not about eliminating the poor and minorities than why was there a big push to have Medicaid pay for abortions? Why would Ginsburg (ACLU attorney representing women’s rights at the time of Roe) admit as much? And the fact that minorities and the poor obtain abortions at a much higher rate than other classes of people demonstrates that abortion was and is readily available and affordable to those in need (I believe this is what Ginsberg is talking about when she says her perception was wrong).
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Ziegler on Planned Parenthood, birth control, abortion, and race: “It was not until the late 1960s, however, that controversy about the racial politics of birth control and abortion became intense. There were several reasons for this shift. First, over the course of the 1950s and early 1960s, efforts to curb population growth enjoyed substantial popular support. In the same period, the movement for the legalization of abortion had picked up steam, attracting the official endorsement of Planned Parenthood in 1968. During this time, a militant streak within the civil-rights movement became more visible and politically significant. Organizations like the Black Panthers contended that birth control and abortion were part of a plan to eliminate poor people of color. Finally, the anti-abortion movement began to organize, connecting the abortion-legalization movement to eugenics and racism. These were the events that made the racial politics of abortion in the early 1970s so combustible.” From the previous paragraphs it seems anti-abortion advocacy groups had good reason to tie the legalization of abortion to eugenics and racism. Ziegler on Planned Parenthood, abortion, race, and population control: “Under Guttmacher's influence, members of Planned Parenthood primarily justified abortion in consequentialist terms, invoking, among other things, the importance of population control. In a pamphlet on the benefits of legalizing abortion in New York, for example, Planned Parenthood stressed such arguments, arguing that legalization would result in lower rates of population growth and illegitimacy and decreased welfare expenses. Similar rhetoric appeared again in a 1969 interview with the New York Times, when Guttmacher argued that abortion reform was a problem closely related to the "population explosion" and contended that population-control efforts, including abortion, were intended to reduce poverty, not eliminate the poor. In 1970, in praising repeal acts in New York and Hawaii, Guttmacher also emphasized "the realization of the population problem. "We're now concerned more with the quality of population than the quantity," he told the Associated Press, in commenting on efforts to reform abortion laws.” Concern over the quality of the population was a eugenics philosophy and to say you want to use abortion to reduce poverty but not eliminate the poor is a very hypocritical statement. Also, the legalization of abortion did nothing to reduce the per capita expenditures on welfare (welfare continues to escalate year in and year out) even though abortion disproportionately affects the poor. Ziegler on NARAL, abortion, and population control: “NARAL also framed abortion access partly by stressing concerns about population control. Along with arguments that abortion was a privacy right, the organization's official debate handbook included a whole category of arguments related to overpopulation. When faced with arguments that Beethoven would not have been born if people used legal abortion for eugenic purposes, NARAL activists were advised to reply that "possibly Hitler wouldn't have been born either." Other proposed claims asserted that "[l]egal abortion will decrease the number of unwanted children . . . and possibly subsequent delinquency, drug addiction, and a host of social ills." A final population control argument stated that "[s]ince contraception alone seems insufficient to reduce fertility to the point of no-growth, . . . we should permit all voluntary means of birth control (including abortion)." Of course, delinquency, drug addiction, and social ills mostly affect the poor and minorities and not the affluent. So, abortion for NARAL was a way to implement eugenic theories on the less fortunate and minorites. Ziegler on NOW, abortion, and population control: “Even the National Organization for Women (NOW), a major feminist group, worked closely with population controllers and, for tactical reasons, borrowed some of their ideas. In November 1970, Christopher Tietze of the Population Council asked NOW President Wilma Scott Heide for NOW volunteers to participate in a study on the health effects of abortion. In writing to NOW state affiliates, Heide recommended participating, suggesting that "[t]he request from the Population Council represents the fact that we are viewed as responsible and stable." While some feminist proposals, like the Equal Rights Amendment, enjoyed substantial support in the early 1970s, population-control legislation, as we have seen, also enjoyed bipartisan support and popular approval. Heide's wish to tie her organization to the population control cause made strategic sense. Indeed, Heide also testified about population control in Congress, arguing that women's rights and overpopulation were inextricably linked.” The last sentence is key to note how women’s rights and overpopulation are linked. Hence, a woman’s right to abort a child because of overpopulation concerns is completely natural, respected, and desired or woman’s rights are not truly being practiced. The following statement by Ziegler is not entirely true: “Roe acknowledged powerful arguments about race that had informed debate inside and outside of the Court, but the justices made no other reference to concerns about race, poverty, abortion access, or equal protection. Indeed, a few years later, in Maher v. Roe (1977) and Harris v. McRae (1981), the Court upheld laws denying public funding for abortion, rendering seemingly irrelevant any constitutional claim that abortion restrictions disproportionately impacted poor women.” The Court, did in fact, consider overpopulation, race, and poverty when deciding Roe for several reasons. First, Justice Potter Stewart saw “abortion was becoming one reasonable solution to population control. Poor people, in particular, were consistently victims of archaic and artificially complicated laws.” Justice Blackmun said, “In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.” Secondly, abortion afflicts both the poor and minorities at a much higher rate than any other class of persons. African-Americans make up 42% of all abortions but only consist of 13% of the population. Therefore, even without federal funding, minorities and the poor are afflicted by abortions disproportionately. With federal funding, these numbers would only be even more disproportionate.
Sunday, September 9, 2018
There is one underlying common thread when it comes to the radical feminist movement for contraceptive and abortion rights: population control. Eugenics, contraception, and abortion: all these ideas were founded on the principle of population control hidden under the guise of women’s rights and women’s right to choose. What’s worse, the ideas and concepts put forth by radical feminists are discriminatory and intentionally target the poor and minorities. Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was not just a supporter of eugenics but she favored population control of the poor, African-Americans, diseased, feeble-minded, criminals, and any other person who is “undesirable”. The three Supreme Court cases leading to a right to privacy and contraceptive and abortion rights were influenced by population control: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) and Roe v. Wade (1973). Griswold was a Planned Parenthood case. In Baird, William Baird was charged with a felony for distributing contraceptive foam after lectures on birth control and population control at Boston University. Below are some Margret Sanger quotes: On blacks, immigrants and indigents: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people. On sterilization & racial purification: Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial "purification," couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech. On the right of married couples to bear children: Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her "Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review, April 1932 On the purpose of birth control: The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2) On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities: "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the chief aim of birth control." Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12 On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon On respecting the rights of the mentally ill: In her "Plan for Peace," Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed "feebleminded." Among the steps included in her evil scheme were immigration restrictions; compulsory sterilization; segregation to a lifetime of farm work; etc. Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107 On adultery: A woman's physical satisfaction was more important than any marriage vow, Sanger believed. Birth Control in America, p. 11 On abortion: "Criminal' abortions arise from a perverted sex relationship under the stress of economic necessity, and their greatest frequency is among married women." The Woman Rebel - No Gods, No Masters, May 1914, Vol. 1, No. 3. Mary Ziegler’s article “Roe’s Race: The Supreme Court, Population Control, and Reproductive Justice” (2013) published in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism is a great article on the role of population control, race, and socio-economic status on abortion. Although I do not agree with her conclusions that race had no impact on the abortion movement and population control theories have been abandoned by the modern movement, her historical analysis is very good. Ziegler on Planned Parenthood and crime in the 1940s: “Since 1947, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America ("Planned 47 Parenthood") had been an eager participant in the delinquency [criminal activity] debate. At a 1947 conference held by the organization, several speakers suggested that unwanted children were a prime cause of delinquency. Equating unplanned with unwanted children, Planned Parenthood speakers concluded that unplanned pregnancies led to bad mothering, as overburdened women could not financially or psychologically provide adequate care for their children.” To equate unplanned with unwanted is wrong. Many families consist of children that were the result of a surprise pregnancy and they are loved no less than their siblings. Ziegler on Planned Parenthood, the poor, and race: “Some Planned Parenthood leaders sided with those who attributed delinquency to bad parents and the dysfunctional values held by the poor. In a 1962 letter to the editor of the New York Times, for example, Planned Parenthood leader Harriet Pilpel criticized a federal grant given to New Haven, Connecticut, a community known for its hostility to family planning. Pilpel asserted that two of the most important causes of delinquency were "overcrowded families and overburdened parents without sufficient means" and "unwanted children." As we have seen, Planned Parenthood's arguments could have troubling racial implications. The organization focused on unwanted children and pathological parenting in poor African American communities, suggesting that minority "culture" created the delinquency that the government sought to prevent.” Once again, these are Margaret Sanger and eugenic philosophies from decades earlier. These theories will comprise any reason to argue for the elimination the African-American race.
Monday, September 3, 2018
The pro-abortion movement was angered by the refusal of Justices to practice stare decisis: to honor the precedent placed forth by Roe v. Wade. Most Justices practice stare decisis to a degree, but remember liberal Justices did not practice stare decisis to honor their own rulings in Williamson for Griswold and Roe. All that being said, stare decisis did in fact save Roe. There was no other reason for Justices to uphold Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Casey v. Planned Parenthood and not overturn Roe (O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy saved Roe). Let’s face the ugly fact that Roe survived based on “compassion” towards women and not the law. What’s more, the trimester compromise founded in Roe was becoming unworkable as Sandra Day O’Connor noted “medical advances for safer late term abortions were colliding with earlier survival rates”. Abortion law, as decided in Roe, was becoming unworkable to have arbitrary divisions of pregnancy terms to govern a supposed Constitutional Right. For this reason, regulation for abortion moved from strict scrutiny in Roe (the state had to prove a compelling state interest) to a rational basis standard for abortion funding to a newly defined “undue burden” standard for abortion regulations after Webster and Casey. The burden of proof on the state is far less severe for “undue burden” than for a compelling state interest. This too is further proof that abortion is not a Fundamental Right. No Fundamental Right would be treated with such a low burden of proof. For instance, the reason hate speech is Constitutional is because freedom of speech is a Fundamental Right protected by the Court using strict scrutiny (a compelling state interest is needed to deny freedom of speech or other Fundamental Rights). I would also argue that entitlements are not only not Fundamental Rights, but they are unconstitutional. Consider the Fifth Amendments Takings Clause which states the government can take private property only for public purposes with just compensation. Taxation for entitlement spending is taking private property (money) for private reasons (welfare) without just compensation. The Sixteenth Amendment passed the Income Tax and that would allow the government to take property (taxes) without just compensation. However, the Sixteenth Amendment does not allow the government to use property (taxes) for private reasons such as welfare. The federal government can use tax money for public things such as transportation, infrastructure, military, post office, etc. The Court has given state and federal governments more power by allowing them to take private property for private reasons if it also suits a public purpose (Kelo v. New London). But does welfare really suit a public purpose? As welfare distributions go up, the poverty rate remains the same. Welfare is not helping any public cause (i.e. more jobs and less poverty). For these reasons, I believe ALL welfare programs are unconstitutional. Pro-abortion rights advocates objected to First Amendment restrictions placed on federally funded health centers. Federal law placed a gag-order on doctors not to discuss abortion options with their patients. The Court held this was legal because patients could get abortion advice at privately funded institutions. I personally disagree with this decision, but I also do not agree with the Court and pro-abortion advocate restrictions on informing potential abortion patients with advice on other avenues to pursue other than abortion does not place an “undue burden” on obtaining an abortion. Patients should have all options available to them to make an educated decision. Personally, I believe both sides of the abortion movement are guilty of trying to restrict the other sides First Amendment Rights. The Supreme Court weighed in on numerous First Amendment issues surrounding abortion with are outlined below. In Bray v. Alexandrea Health Clinic (1993) pro-abortion rights advocates wanted to impose the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act (which prevented violence against freedmen) against pro-life protestors. The Court did not concur because they saw the issue of freedman and abortion as completely mutually exclusive circumstances (one was racist and the other was a difference between morals and ethical standards). Besides, generally when there is violence at protests both sides are guilty of these actions (it takes two to tango). In NOW v. Joseph Scheidler (1994) pro-abortion rights advocates wanted to impose the RICO Act (used against racketeer and corruption for crime organizations against pro-life protestors. In this case, the Court incorrectly held the RICO Act could be used in some instances against pro-life protestors. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994) the Court held that a protest perimeter around individuals going to an abortion clinic was Constitutional even though the dissent argued that the protesters were not engaging in any illegal activity. In Schenck v. Prochoice Network (1997) the Court held that floating perimeters around individuals entering a clinic were unconstitutional, but fixed buffers at the entrance were legal. In Hill v. Colorado the Court upheld fixed perimeters around a clinic entrance but the dissent once again held that these laws were unconstitutional because they only applied to anti-abortion speech. Remember, the Court held that burning a cross in a minorities yard and Nazi parades are all legal forms of free speech subject to no restrictions, but abortion protests are subject to restriction. Congress passed the Freedom to Access Clinics Act to eliminate violence and coercion but what it really accomplished was to silence those trying to educate persons seeking an abortion on federal assistance mothers may qualify for and adoption information. Many state laws to this day exempt doctors and nurses from performing abortions or prescribing abortifacients on moral grounds. In Stenberg v. Carhart the Court narrowly upheld partial birth abortion when the fetus is moved into the birth canal to perform the abortion. In Gonzales v. Carhart the Court reversed course and said partial birth abortions were illegal. The Court did not overrule Stenberg, but said that Stenberg was more ambiguous then the federal statute in Gonzales. Hull and Hofer’s book brings up every instance of anti-abortion violence and the killing of abortion doctors. No one should condone this, but to think the pro-abortion side of the equation is not guilty of violence is just mind boggling. After all, it takes two opposing sides to have violence at protests. Hull and Hofer make no mention of late term abortions of viable babies which to many is infanticide. Hull and Hofer make not mention about how abortion disproportionately targets the poor and minorities. Hull and Hofer make not mention of the profiteering off fetal tissue meaning abortion clinics have incentive to convince women to have unnecessary abortions. Hull and Hofer make no mention of how aborted fetuses are discarded in the trash like any other piece of garbage showing a complete and utter lack of respect for the prospect of life. Hull and Hofer are obviously biased liberals who decided to tell just one side of the story while convincing some they are neutral observers. Hull and Hofer compared the Woman’s right to choose to when men got the right to a limited eight-hour workday. I do not see how these are equivalent in any sense of the imagination. Women also have an eight-hour workday but fathers have no say in the outcome in the pregnancy of their child. An equivalent act would be to outlaw the military draft or have more women fight in combat. Abortion should be decided by the people of each state since it is not an enumerated power of the federal government in the Constitution. Just as the right for women to decide to have an abortion should not be a Fundamental Right, conversely the Court defining that life happens at conception would also be wrong. Even Justice Souter said abortion was not a Fundamental Right decided by Roe, but instead a power restriction on the states. I believe abortion can be a right (in some states) just as it is a right to brush your teeth. But it is up to the states to decide, not a nine-member Court. In her oral argument before the Court, Sarah Weddington who defended Roe, admitted “We are not here to advocate abortion. We do not ask this Court to rule that abortion is good, or desirable in any particular situation.” In other words, abortion is bad, but women should have the right to make decisions over their body even if they are bad. That is true most of the time, unfortunately abortion must consider the life of the baby. Abortion hardly sounds like a Fundamental Right. Fundamental Rights are something we can all agree upon that are good for humanity. In Weddington’s own words this is obviously not the case. Although the Court rejected assisted suicide as a Fundamental Right, by allowing abortion to be a Fundamental Right it opened the door to a slippery-slope of other issues. It would not surprise if euthanasia is eventually a Fundamental Right. Finally, abortion has always been a polarizing subject in American politics, especially at the state level. However, it only became a divisive issue on the national level because of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade has created a political litmus test for conservative and liberal politicians and choices for federal courts. It has thrown gas on an already polarizing political landscape in this country. This is why the Court should not answer political questions. By doing so they have not only mitigated state sovereignty but individual sovereignty. Pro-abortion advocates will claim that Roe increased individual sovereignty for women. That may be true for some women, but certainly not a plurality of women, men, and the unborn. It is hardly a victory for equal protection when one group of people garner more rights at the expense of others. Since the Court settled the abortion issue millions of people who were not alive when the Court decided Roe no longer have a say on how its state decides such political issues. This is not democracy, it is tyranny. The only way abortion should become a federal issue is if the Constitution is amended. For the final argument against abortion it has been assumed that the pro-life argument is solely based on the fact that the fetus is a person and life happens at conception. But the Constitution has upheld hundreds of laws that do not pertain to people, but to property, corporations, and the environment. If destroying private property, wetlands, or wildlife is protected under our Constitution, then it is not a stretch to consider the Constitution may protect destroying a fetus.