Select Page

12 Republican Governors File a Brief With the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

12 Republican Governors File a Brief With the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Twelve Republican governors, including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, filed a brief with the Supreme Court requesting the overturn of Roe v. Wade.

The baby-killing Leftists’ worst nightmare has become a reality.

TRENDING: NYT “REPORTER” DELETES TWEETS URGING TRUMP SUPPORTERS TO BE CALLED ‘ENEMIES OF THE STATE’ AMID BACKLASH

From the Tampa Bay Times:

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed Florida on to an effort to have two of the most important abortion cases in U.S. history overturned by the nation’s highest court.

In a Thursday brief, DeSantis, along with ten other Republican governors, argued the Supreme Court should reconsider past decisions on the 1973 case Roe v. Wade and the 1992 case Planned Parenthood of Southeast Pennsylvania v. CaseyRoe established the constitutional right to an abortion nationally, and Casey reaffirmed that right while making it easier for states to legally pass some abortion regulations.

If the Supreme Court, which currently has a 6-3 conservative majority, were to overturn those cases, abortion law could be left up to individual states — which could then choose to ban the procedure or regulate it in a way not legal under current Supreme Court precedent.

Since the Tampa Bay Times’ reporting, the number of governors has grown to 12 and include:

  • Kay Ivey of Alabama
  • Doug Ducey of Arizona
  • Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas
  • Brian Kemp of Georgia
  • Brian Little of Idaho
  • Kim Reynolds of Iowa
  • Mike Parson of Missouri
  • Greg Gianforte of Montana
  • Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma
  • Greg Abbott of Texas
  • Henry McMaster of South Carolina.

According to CNN, 228 Republican members of Congress sent a similar brief to the court with the same request. The key focus of the brief:

The judicial constitutionalization of abortion represents an unwarranted intrusion into the sovereign sphere of the States. Returning to the States the plenary authority to regulate abortion without federal interference would restore the proper (i.e., constitutional) relationship between the States and the Federal Government. It also would produce positive results, including letting the democratic process work as intended, deescalating tensions on this divisive topic, and allowing the States to serve as laboratories of democracy for establishing and implementing suitable abortion regulations based on the latest scientific knowledge.

The Supreme Court is slated to hear the Mississippi case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which challenges a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks gestation. As SCOTUS Blog reported, a decision in support of the state law could upend the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which the court ruled that the Constitution protects the right to have an abortion before a fetus becomes viable.

This is what abortion rights advocates have feared and fought against for decades, so these additional briefs by the 12 governors and the U.S. representatives leave no doubt of this intent. Now that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court will review the case, an overturn of Roe v. Wade could become a possibility.

And the meltdown ensues:

Part of the problem with Roe v Wade, and both supporters and opponents have said since it passed, was the weakness of the ruling by the Supreme Court where they found that the case was upheld by the 14th amendment, the right to privacy.

Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “right of privacy” found in the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is “broad enough to encompass” a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that’s true.

“What is frightening about Roe,” noted the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely (who personally supported legalized abortion), “is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. … It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

But Roe is even more ridiculous than most observers realize. The American people adopted the Fourteenth Amendment during an era in which those same American people enacted numerous state laws with the primary purpose of protecting unborn children from abortion. A century later, Roe ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow prevents Americans from doing what the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment actually did. “To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist quipped in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states. They replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.

TRENDING: MEMBER OF BRITISH PARLIAMENT ADMITS, LOCKDOWNS ARE FOR SOCIAL CONTROL

Justice Byron White, a dissenter in Roe, explained the problem in his dissent in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. “[T]he Constitution itself is ordained and established by the people of the United States,” he wrote. “[D]ecisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people’s authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation.” Roe defied the Constitution and other laws that the American people agreed upon—and imposed the will of the unelected Court instead.

The left is going crazy; the reason is they know that pressing the issue that the 14th never gave such protection, in fact, was written to protect women from forced abortions is a gross violation of the intent of the amendment.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

About The Author

Timothy Benton

Student of history, a journalist for the last 2 years. Specialize in Middle East History, more specifically modern history with the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Also, a political commentator has been a lifetime fan of politics.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *