10/26/09
THE BEGINNING OF ME ACTUALLY PUTTING MY OWN WORDS INTO THIS BLOG
Elated and relieved, yet sad and deflated
1-30-10
12/20/09
Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005 By Dave Leach The Covenant News ~ December 19, 2009
Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005
By Dave Leach The Covenant News
~ December 19, 2009
Third in a series of simplified excerpts from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. Judge Wilbert will hold a hearing December 22 whether to order Scott not to say a word to the jury about the only contested issue of the trial, and Scott’s only defense: the Necessity Defense. Judge Wilbert’s email address is wwilbert@dc18.org. Scott’s trial is scheduled for January 11. Future installments: The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury
2005 was when federal law established the full humanity and personhood of the unborn.
That met the condition laid out in Roe v. Wade for its own “collapse”.
That removed any legal protection of abortion at any stage of gestation, freeing states to once again pass laws against abortion.
That established the unborn as “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
That not only frees states to make abortion a crime, but prohibits states from legalizing abortion!
That makes all abortion prevention precedents, from before 2005, out of date.
That includes City of Wichita v. Tilson, a 1993 case in Kansas, where Scott Roeder is on trial, that says abortion is not “legally recognizable as a harm” because it is “constitutionally protected”. Therefore, the Court said, it is illogical for prolifers who prevented a few abortions by blocking abortuary doors to argue that they were preventing far greater harm than the small harm of trespassing that they caused. It is illogical because abortion is not a harm. Well, what they mean is, it may in fact be a great terrible harm, as great as the prolifers say: it may be the cruelest, most barbaric genocide of all human history. But that is “irrelevant” because it is not “legally recognizable as a harm.”
Well, now it is.
It has been for 4 years now.
Not only is abortion now “legally recognizable as a harm”, it is legally recognizable as unlawful.
Up until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional, courts must conform their rulings to them. No court has declared this law unconstitutional, so Roe v. Wade, and the entire legality of abortion, has been reversed since 2005. It may not appear so now, but that is only because inconsistencies between law and case law are not resolved instantly; the only mechanism for resolving them is a case that requires those inconsistencies to be resolved. This is that case.
LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW
“LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW”, 18 U.S.Code 1841, satisfied the criteria in Roe v. Wade for Roe’s “collapse” by establishing, as a matter of fact as well as of legal recognition, the humanity of the unborn. A U.S. law is superior in authority to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, in the sense that the Supreme Court must obey it, until such point as the Court declares it unconstitutional. Not that there is any conflict between Laci’s Law and Roe v. Wade, requiring courts and citizens to decide which to obey. The two are in harmony. Laci’s Law does not attack Roe, but satisfies the conditions which Roe invited fact finders to establish.
Laci’s Law states that it should not be construed to “permit prosecution” of abortion, but this statement should not be construed to prevent the “collapse” of Roe. The “collapse” of Roe will not “permit prosecution” of abortion; it will only free states (or indeed Congress) to “permit prosecution” of abortion, by passing laws making abortion a crime. Outlawing abortion is clearly a process with two distinct steps, and Laci’s Law clearly takes only the first.
“Laci’s Law”:
(a) Defines killing of an unborn child as homicide.
(b) Provides that intentionally killing an unborn child is punishable under the federal murder statutes, for “intentionally killing...a human being”.
(c) Provides an “abortion exception” clause which declines to penalize elective abortions. (“Elective” means the abortion was voluntary. That is, the baby didn’t volunteer, but the mother did. In other words, Laci’s Law makes it a crime to kill an unborn baby by assaulting the mother when she does not want to be assaulted. But the mother is still allowed to voluntarily pay a doctor to assault her baby.)
(d): Defines terms in (a): “the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
In short, Laci's Law defines the humanity of unborn humans as equal with that of born humans, even though it does not penalize their murders equally.
The opponents of §1841 saw it as the end of Roe. For example, Mr. Nadler, opposing the law, stated: “(I)f the law recognizes that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception......then the law must recognize and protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.” Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 150 Cong. Rec. H637-05, *H640. Several other frantic pro-abortion lawmakers prophesied Roe’s doom. Author Amanda Bruchs states of § 1841: “....unborn children whether viable or not, will be considered as human beings, and therefore, whole as persons as victims of crime.... [Laci's Law] extension of legal personhood to a[n] [unborn child] is entirely unprecedented in the history of federal law... .[The Supreme Court] could be forced to do what it has avoided for over thirty years: determine the ultimate value of the life interest and decide when that life begins.” (Clash of Competing Interests: Can the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Over Thirty Years of Settled Abortion Law Co-Exist Peacefully?, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 133 (2004) See also Wilmering, R.R., Note, Federalism, The Commerce Clause 80 Tns . L_J. 1989 (2005); Speizer, E., Recent Developments in Reproduction Health Law....41 Cal. W.L. Rev. 507 (2005); Kole, T. and Kadetsky, L., Recent Developments, 39 Harvard Journal Legislation 215 (2002))
The Supreme Court can determine no such thing. The Court cannot “decide when life begins.” Congress has done it. The Court need only do its job and step out of the way of the law.
No case finds that unborn life, at any stage, is not human life. Since Laci's Law, no court can do this.
(Of course, many of the babies saved from George Tiller by the defendant were “viable” or “third trimester” babies, who have always been considered whole legal human persons, even by Roe v. Wade.)
THE “COLLAPSE” CLAUSE
The Collapse Clause in Roe v. Wade has two parts. The first part says "[Texas argues] that the 'fetus' is a person.. .If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [legality of abortion], of course, collapses, for the right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Constitution].”
What the second part says about past legislation, applies to future legislation: “[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” In other words, had previous law recognized the unborn as “persons in the whole sense”, Roe could not have legalized abortion. In other words, at such time as future laws establish the unborn as “persons”, the teeter upon which Roe totters will leave Roe alone and crashing down.
If the definition of the unborn as “homo sapiens” (18 U.S.C. § 1841(d) does not satisfy the clear plain meaning and invitation of the Collapse Clause, then the Clause has no meaning, which would raise doubts whether any other part of Roe, or which part, has any meaning. Federal law now recognizes the unborn “as persons in the whole sense”. Roe therefore, by its own terms, “collapses”. It must be overruled.
NEXT: Roe’s Collapse Clause is a Doe in Estrus, and Laci’s Law is a 20 Point Buck.
Brief Series: Necessity Defense
1st: Not All George Tiller's Abortions were 'Legal'
2nd: Abortion Hasn't Been 'Constitutionally Protected' for 18 Years!
3rd: Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005
Dave Leach
Author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many.
Contact him at:
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
E-mail: AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.
Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm
By Dave Leach The Covenant News
~ December 19, 2009
Third in a series of simplified excerpts from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. Judge Wilbert will hold a hearing December 22 whether to order Scott not to say a word to the jury about the only contested issue of the trial, and Scott’s only defense: the Necessity Defense. Judge Wilbert’s email address is wwilbert@dc18.org. Scott’s trial is scheduled for January 11. Future installments: The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury
2005 was when federal law established the full humanity and personhood of the unborn.
That met the condition laid out in Roe v. Wade for its own “collapse”.
That removed any legal protection of abortion at any stage of gestation, freeing states to once again pass laws against abortion.
That established the unborn as “persons” within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
That not only frees states to make abortion a crime, but prohibits states from legalizing abortion!
That makes all abortion prevention precedents, from before 2005, out of date.
That includes City of Wichita v. Tilson, a 1993 case in Kansas, where Scott Roeder is on trial, that says abortion is not “legally recognizable as a harm” because it is “constitutionally protected”. Therefore, the Court said, it is illogical for prolifers who prevented a few abortions by blocking abortuary doors to argue that they were preventing far greater harm than the small harm of trespassing that they caused. It is illogical because abortion is not a harm. Well, what they mean is, it may in fact be a great terrible harm, as great as the prolifers say: it may be the cruelest, most barbaric genocide of all human history. But that is “irrelevant” because it is not “legally recognizable as a harm.”
Well, now it is.
It has been for 4 years now.
Not only is abortion now “legally recognizable as a harm”, it is legally recognizable as unlawful.
Up until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional, courts must conform their rulings to them. No court has declared this law unconstitutional, so Roe v. Wade, and the entire legality of abortion, has been reversed since 2005. It may not appear so now, but that is only because inconsistencies between law and case law are not resolved instantly; the only mechanism for resolving them is a case that requires those inconsistencies to be resolved. This is that case.
LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW
“LACI AND CONNOR’S LAW”, 18 U.S.Code 1841, satisfied the criteria in Roe v. Wade for Roe’s “collapse” by establishing, as a matter of fact as well as of legal recognition, the humanity of the unborn. A U.S. law is superior in authority to a U.S. Supreme Court decision, in the sense that the Supreme Court must obey it, until such point as the Court declares it unconstitutional. Not that there is any conflict between Laci’s Law and Roe v. Wade, requiring courts and citizens to decide which to obey. The two are in harmony. Laci’s Law does not attack Roe, but satisfies the conditions which Roe invited fact finders to establish.
Laci’s Law states that it should not be construed to “permit prosecution” of abortion, but this statement should not be construed to prevent the “collapse” of Roe. The “collapse” of Roe will not “permit prosecution” of abortion; it will only free states (or indeed Congress) to “permit prosecution” of abortion, by passing laws making abortion a crime. Outlawing abortion is clearly a process with two distinct steps, and Laci’s Law clearly takes only the first.
“Laci’s Law”:
(a) Defines killing of an unborn child as homicide.
(b) Provides that intentionally killing an unborn child is punishable under the federal murder statutes, for “intentionally killing...a human being”.
(c) Provides an “abortion exception” clause which declines to penalize elective abortions. (“Elective” means the abortion was voluntary. That is, the baby didn’t volunteer, but the mother did. In other words, Laci’s Law makes it a crime to kill an unborn baby by assaulting the mother when she does not want to be assaulted. But the mother is still allowed to voluntarily pay a doctor to assault her baby.)
(d): Defines terms in (a): “the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”
In short, Laci's Law defines the humanity of unborn humans as equal with that of born humans, even though it does not penalize their murders equally.
The opponents of §1841 saw it as the end of Roe. For example, Mr. Nadler, opposing the law, stated: “(I)f the law recognizes that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception......then the law must recognize and protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.” Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2003 150 Cong. Rec. H637-05, *H640. Several other frantic pro-abortion lawmakers prophesied Roe’s doom. Author Amanda Bruchs states of § 1841: “....unborn children whether viable or not, will be considered as human beings, and therefore, whole as persons as victims of crime.... [Laci's Law] extension of legal personhood to a[n] [unborn child] is entirely unprecedented in the history of federal law... .[The Supreme Court] could be forced to do what it has avoided for over thirty years: determine the ultimate value of the life interest and decide when that life begins.” (Clash of Competing Interests: Can the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Over Thirty Years of Settled Abortion Law Co-Exist Peacefully?, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 133 (2004) See also Wilmering, R.R., Note, Federalism, The Commerce Clause 80 Tns . L_J. 1989 (2005); Speizer, E., Recent Developments in Reproduction Health Law....41 Cal. W.L. Rev. 507 (2005); Kole, T. and Kadetsky, L., Recent Developments, 39 Harvard Journal Legislation 215 (2002))
The Supreme Court can determine no such thing. The Court cannot “decide when life begins.” Congress has done it. The Court need only do its job and step out of the way of the law.
No case finds that unborn life, at any stage, is not human life. Since Laci's Law, no court can do this.
(Of course, many of the babies saved from George Tiller by the defendant were “viable” or “third trimester” babies, who have always been considered whole legal human persons, even by Roe v. Wade.)
THE “COLLAPSE” CLAUSE
The Collapse Clause in Roe v. Wade has two parts. The first part says "[Texas argues] that the 'fetus' is a person.. .If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [legality of abortion], of course, collapses, for the right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Constitution].”
What the second part says about past legislation, applies to future legislation: “[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” In other words, had previous law recognized the unborn as “persons in the whole sense”, Roe could not have legalized abortion. In other words, at such time as future laws establish the unborn as “persons”, the teeter upon which Roe totters will leave Roe alone and crashing down.
If the definition of the unborn as “homo sapiens” (18 U.S.C. § 1841(d) does not satisfy the clear plain meaning and invitation of the Collapse Clause, then the Clause has no meaning, which would raise doubts whether any other part of Roe, or which part, has any meaning. Federal law now recognizes the unborn “as persons in the whole sense”. Roe therefore, by its own terms, “collapses”. It must be overruled.
NEXT: Roe’s Collapse Clause is a Doe in Estrus, and Laci’s Law is a 20 Point Buck.
Brief Series: Necessity Defense
1st: Not All George Tiller's Abortions were 'Legal'
2nd: Abortion Hasn't Been 'Constitutionally Protected' for 18 Years!
3rd: Roe v. Wade 'Collapsed' in 2005
Dave Leach
Author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many.
Contact him at:
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
E-mail: AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.
Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.