SCOTUS TO HEAR MISSISSIPPI CASE WHICH COULD OVERTURN ROE v WADE

 Supreme Court To Hear Abortion Case December 1 That Could Overturn Roe V. Wade

 The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case concerning Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban on December 1, the court announced Monday, potentially paving the way for abortion rights in the U.S. to be severely restricted as the case could result in Roe v. Wade being significantly weakened or overturned. CONTINUED

DR. BEZ - A WILLING CONSPIRATOR

Norma McCorvey. Aka "Jane Roe."

In a previous post, we presented a brief response to a letter by Dr. Ellen Bez in the Guam Daily Post titled "Guam laws impose unreasonable barriers to a women’s choice."

In this post, we will continue to address Dr. Bez' claims as follows:

In her letter, Bez alleges: "This is an emotionally charged issue, and there are strong convictions on both sides."

This a usual tactic. 

Reduce the issue to "emotionally charged" with "strong convictions on both sides," so it can be discarded as an "emotional issue" - or even as a religious issue (as Bez will get to) so that it can be discarded as such. 

Bez and her ilk resort to this argument at the outset in order to evade answering the question whether or not the "abort-ee" is a human being, which, is really to evade the question: 

"When are you okay with killing an innocent, defenseless human being?" 

In an age, particularly recently, where the mantra "follow the science" is almost an imputed impeachable constitutional article, the real "follow the science," for absolutely everyone, but especially for medical personnel like Bez, demonstrates that from the moment of conception, there is "something" growing. 

And that "something growing" means that this "something" is alive. And that this "something" that is "alive" is not a fetal elephant or a dog, but a human...a human boy or girl.

In fact, given the "science," pro-aborts" don't even bother with the "clump of cells" argument anymore but have resorted to the "woman's right to choose," argument. 

But "right to choose" what? 

Per the pro-aborts, like Bez, the question is whether or not another "someone," regardless that the "another someone" happens to be living and growing in another host human being, can be killed by the "choice" of that "another someone's" host...with the assistance of the host's doctor...like Bez.

Comically, if it can even be called "comical", the pro-aborts "sacramental" authority, i.e. Roe v Wade, employs the phrase "woman's right to choose," absolutely NOWHERE. 

Look it up. 

Pursuant to Roe, all authority to terminate a living child in the womb is given completely to the attendant physician in the first trimester, and, amazingly, to the state in the final two trimesters. 

The WOMAN has NO choice!

Given that in 1973 when Roe became the law of the land, and wherein not only was the Roe Court all men - as were most physicians, - Roe was a decision BY men and FOR men.

And why was that?

The fact is that the original "Jane Roe" not only was not raped as her then pro-abort attorney had claimed, but "Roe" (i.e. Norma McCorvey) went on to not only birth her child but in later life became an virulent opponent of the ruling that was named after her and has led, since 1973 to nearly a hundred million murdered children.

Ultimately - for anyone who cares about the facts - abortion is the ultimate "cover up" for men who don't want their tracks of infidelity, prostitution, and general "20 seconds of pleasure" traced back to them. 

I.E, abortion is the "final solution" -  the ultimate "birth control" - wherein men can "kill the evidence." And so they do. 

And Bez, pursuant to her letter, appears to be a willing conspirator.

To be continued.

WHEN 9 MEN TOOK AWAY A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

The belief that Roe gave women the “right to choose” is almost a metaphor for how much the 1973 U.S.Supreme Court decision is misunderstood, and why, after 45 years, Roe is still so hotly debated.

The fact is that Roe v Wade did not give women the right to choose. In fact, Roe left the right of woman out of its ruling all together.

In Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court, first, gave the “right to chose” to the medical professionals (for the first trimester) and thereafter, to the government (for the second and third):

For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician (Roe v Wade, Pp. 163, 164).

 For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health (Roe v Wade, Pp. 163, 164).

For the stage subsequent to viability the state, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother (Roe v Wade, Pp. 163, 164, 165).

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

As can be seen, nowhere does Roe give women the right to choose anything. 

Ironically, while the abortion rights mantra has remained “keep the government out of our wombs,” the very ruling relied upon for that mantra is exactly what put government there in the first place.