Stephen Smith | Abortion Debate: Rage, Joy and Misunderstanding

SCV Voices: Guest Commentary
SCV Voices: Guest Commentary
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Roe v. Wade has been a source of rage, joy, and misunderstanding. It provides us a rare opportunity to explore the Constitution, federalism and our creator-given and enumerated rights under natural law. 

We have been told that the case was about a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy versus the right of a fetus to live and prosper. The real issue was about jurisdiction to legislate. 

Any right that is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is to be delegated to the people and/or the states. This principle that divides authorities between national and regional government is known as federalism. 

There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, therefore in Roe v. Wade, the appointed judges overreached their authority by in effect creating a new law. 

It is puzzling why so many claim that the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade was an assault on our freedoms and democracy, when in fact it was giving back authority to the people and their democratically elected local representatives. 

Language, faith and feelings get in the way of truth, principles and virtue. 

Mistakenly, the arguments often revolve around when does life begin. There can be no scientific disagreement that life begins at conception. Even a zygote (first divisions of cells) is life. A single-cell amoeba is life. 

The zygote is simply a stage of human development. It is not the same as a wart or cancerous cells that can be expunged without moral or legal considerations. 

The relevant constitutional right for the soon-to-be born is found in the Fifth and 14th Amendments: “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 

This remarkable principle is preeminent over any state law on murder. Abortions are broadly accepted without regard to determining personhood. We have fallen short in arguing when personhood begins. 

When deemed to be a person, the baby’s life is being terminated without due process of law. 

Majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.” – Justice Harry Blackmun. 

Despite being aware of this, the court made their unconstitutional ruling. In effect, the judiciary created a new law, which was in direct violation of the separation of powers. 

The consequences included millions of future citizens losing their lives without due process of law. 

I am not arguing that from time to time abortion is not proper and necessary — it is. As a primary source of birth control, it is very troubling. 

Clearly President Joe Biden in his speech at NATO does not believe in or understand the document he swore to protect and defend. He declared the Supreme Court ruling to be outrageous. He shamed America on a foreign stage. 

He then requested that Congress pass a law, reinstating Roe v. Wade. Such a law would also be unconstitutional. A constitutional amendment, with a much higher standard to pass, would be necessary. 

There are many complex issues involved. I have come to believe that at its core is the rejection or perhaps ignorance of values or of a principle that was central to our founders known as “ natural law.” It is a belief that our rights and liberties come from our creator and are not subject to modification by man or the state. 

In addition, it is the rules laid out on how life and the universe are designed to work. 

For example, one can argue that a woman’s body was designed to grow and nurture a new person. Killing the fetus or baby would be a violation of that natural law cycle. 

The most well-known expressions of natural law and the best rulebook for living in a civil society was the Decalogue, better known today as the 10 Commandments. Its timeless wisdom – such as, honor your mother and father; do not murder; do not steal; do not covet or envy; do not lie in court or commit adultery — are all correct and timeless. 

Unfortunately, many on the left reject these virtues to achieve their dream of government dominance over the individual. 

I am left asking, why are many so angry about having restrictions on the wholesale killing of developing human beings? Why is there rage about leaving the policies up to the people and their representatives? It looks like toxic narcissism run rampant. 

These are dark times. 

I recommend that you study natural law and the 10 Commandments for enlightenment. Dennis Prager’s “The Rational Bible, Exodus” would be a good place to start. If you feel that things are wrong, listen to your inner voice and take positive action. 

Stephen Smith is a Santa Clarita resident. “Right Here, Right Now” appears Saturdays and rotates among local Republicans.

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS