Case Contradiction: Should Partial-Birth Abortion Technically Be Legal?

In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States changed the face of the nation when Chief Justice, Warren E. Berger, voted to legalize murder so long as the victim had yet to exit its mother’s womb. On the same day its sister case, Doe v. Bolton was decided, Roe v. Wade ruled that denying a woman an abortion was unconstitutional because it denied her 14th amendment right to privacy under the due process clause of that amendment. In the constitution, there are due process clauses in both the fifth as well as the 14th amendments. Due process clauses were included in our Constitution in order to protect citizens from the subjective denial of life, liberty and/or property by the government, outside of its own authority and power.

In this ruling, the Supreme Court immediately contradicts itself by citing the reason for the ruling as, “protecting [the people] from the governmental denial of life,” while simultaneously taking the right to life away from millions of unborn children. Furthermore, the decision is void of any legal standing, otherwise known as the ability of Jane Roe [Norma McCorvey] to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party’s participation in the case. When Norma McCorvey became pregnant with her third child, she went to Dallas to receive an abortion after she was ill advised, by close friends, to lie about being raped in order to receive a legal abortion in that state. However, her request was denied due to the fact that there was no police report authenticating McCorvey’s rape claim. Following her failure to falsify the means by which her child was conceived, she sought an illegal abortion at a facility that had since been shut down. She was then referred to two local lawyers, who brought the case to the Supreme Court of Texas and, later, the Supreme Court of the United States. Therefore, by the time the Supreme Court ruled in her case, she had already given birth, thus proving that she did not have legal standing in order to assert the rights (or lack thereof) of other women. Additionally, McCorvey never actually presented the Supreme Court with a legitimate grievance and a plea for liberation from said grievance. Justice Byron White was the senior dissenting justice at the time and, subsequently, stated that he could, “see no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States.”

Although it seems as though Roe v. Wade could not possibly be contradicted more than it has already been by itself, let us fast forward 34 years later to 2007 and the case of Gonzales v. Carhart. This case upheld the ruling against the use of partial-birth abortion in the United States unless the mother’s health presented to be in danger. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was implemented in 2003 by then president Bush who deemed partial-birth abortion unconstitutional in the United States of America. Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the ban stating that partial-birth abortion still was unconstitutional.

Ironically, just a few decades earlier, the legality of abortion was affirmed and did not specify when a child could be legally murdered. Until the ruling of Roe v. wade is overturned because of how unconstitutional it is, then the ruling of Gonzales v. Carhart makes little to no sense whatsoever and directly contradicts the 1973 ruling—plain and simple. If a woman can have an abortion at 8 weeks, what is the difference if she has one at 8 months? Constitutionally, scientifically, and morally speaking, it is the same child inside of her—both at the second it is conceived up until the second it is born. Therefore, if the government is willing to rule that it is legal for the child to be murdered inside the safest place it will ever know, then who’s to say when the mother can do so? After all, it is, in fact, her body both at the time of conception and at the time of birth. It is a contradiction of one case to another to say that at an indiscriminate point in the pregnancy the baby becomes its own person and no longer is part of the mother’s body. The admission that partial birth abortion is unconstitutional is the admission that a baby in the womb is a person with rights just as the rest of us.

Posted in Contributors, Kayla Adanalian.

Kayla Adanalian

Kayla Adanalian is a young conservative who believes strongly in defending liberty, the importance of the traditional family, and the value of maintaining the appreciation of a strong male role in society. From a young female’s perspective, she is dedicated to defeating and exposing the lies put forth by modern feminists and the threat they pose to the break down of traditional ideals.