Biden’s Solicitor General Just Slipped In SCOTUS Abortion Case

Abortion

When legal representative Sarah Weddington stood in the Supreme Court on Oct. 11, 1972, to provide the pro-abortion argument when it comes to Roe v. Wade, she was legalistically cautious in the language she used to explain whom exactly an abortion terminated.

She avoided normal, logical human terms like “unborn child” or “baby”—and, most importantly, “person.” She preferred “fetus.” And it is this language that has dominated the so-called ‘pro-choice’ language on abortions since.

Presumably, this was since the 14th Amendment states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Justice Byron White, one of only two justices who would wind up dissenting from the court’s viewpoint that there was a “right” to abortion, pushed Weddington on the accurate question of whether the coming children eliminated by abortions were in reality people.

“Several of the briefs before this Court would also argue that this Court, in deciding the Vuitch case, which has allowed abortions to continue in the District of Columbia, certainly the Court would not have made that kind of decision if it felt there were any ingrained rights of the fetus within the Constitution,” Weddington told the court.

After she said that, White engaged her in a pointed line of questioning. “Is it crucial to your case that the fetus not be a person under the due process clause?” asked the justice, who had been chosen by President John F. Kennedy.

“It seems to me,” Weddington said, “that it is critical first that we prove this is a fundamental interest on behalf of the woman, that it is a constitutional right, and, second … .”

White disrupted her. “Yes, but how about the fetus?” he asked.

“OK, and second, that the state has no compelling state interest,” she said, evading his question. “OK, and the state is alleging a compelling state interest.”

White persisted. “Yes, but I’m just asking you, under the federal Constitution, is the fetus a person for the purpose of the protection of the due process clause?”

“All of the cases, the prior history of this statute, the common law history, would indicate that it is not,” said Weddington. “The state has shown no … .”

White interrupted her once again. “Well,” he said, “what if … Would you lose your case if the fetus was a person?”

“Then you would have a balancing of interests,” Weddington responded.

“You have anyway, don’t you?” stated White.

“Excuse me?”  said Weddington.

“You have anyway, don’t you?” White repeated. “You’re going to be balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the fetus.”

However Weddington would not yield that a “fetus” had civil liberties.  “It seems to me that you do not balance constitutional rights of one person against mere statutory rights of another,” she said.

A minute later, nevertheless, she yielded that the circumstance might be various if the state might develop that a fetus was a person. “If the state could show that the fetus was a person under the 14th Amendment or under some other amendment or part of the Constitution, then you would have … a state compelling interest which, in some instances, can outweigh a fundamental right,” she said.

“This is not the case in this particular situation,”she claimed.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Company, a case that challenges the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Biden administration opposes the Mississippi law. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar took part in the oral arguments versus it that were presented in the Supreme Court.

Justice Clarence Thomas confronted her with an essential concern.

“The court has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate fully and equally in society,” Prelogar said in her argument. “The court should not overrule this central component of women’s liberty.”

“General,” Thomas asked her, “would you … specifically state what the right is? Is it specifically abortion? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?”

Prelogar, in reacting, was not as circumspect as Weddington had remained in the terms she utilized to explain the target of an abortion.

“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas,” she said, “but I think it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty, and equality. And I do think that it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term.” (Emphasis added)

So, the target of an abortion, according to the argument President Joe Biden’s solicitor general made in the Supreme Court, is “that baby.”

Is “that baby” a human being? Is “that baby” a person? Does “that infant” have a right to life? Of course.

H/T The Daily Signal

Leave a Reply

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

Related Posts