Home‎ > ‎

The U.S. Supreme Court's "Greatest self-inflicted wound"

With the recent introduction of The Unborn Child Protection Act of 2018 in Guam's Legislature this past week, Guam has entered into the most controversial area of abortion legislation yet: pain-capable abortion limits.


The bill prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, because, as the bill states: "Medical evidence indicates that, at least by 20 weeks after fertilization, an unborn child possesses the physical structure necessary to experience pain."


The abortion promoting Guttmacher Institute lists 19 states that have similar 20 week bans with various conditions and exceptions attached. 


The immediate argument against the local bill is that similar legislation in Arizona and Idaho has been "enjoined" by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals so why are we bothering with this legislation in Guam as the Ninth Circuit is sure to do the same with our bill?


There are a variety of arguments for pushing the legislation forward but the argument I personally propose is: "SO?"


The U.S. Supreme Court itself once ruled against a man named Dred Scott, a slave who sued for his freedom after his owner had taken him to a free state (Illinois). 


Then-Chief Justice, Roger Taney, thought the ruling would resolve the slavery question once and for all (just like Roe v Wade was supposed to resolve the abortion question). 


However, "the decision immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North, and proved to be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War."


A later Chief Justice called the Scott decision "the Court's greatest self-inflicted wound."


Today, we can say "THANK GOD" some people did not sit down and shut up just because some guys in black robes ruled on something. 


Pro-life advocates are today's "abolitionists." And due to their efforts, the Dred Scott case will one day take a back seat to Roe v Wade, as not just the Court's, but the United States of America's "greatest self inflicted wound." 

Comments