Quantcast

Voice in the Wilderness

judgelife

by Jen Green

If ever a contemporary judge more closely resembled a biblical figure, I’m at a loss to show it. In a time when truth is very hard to find coming from our judicial system, and rarely so clearly, an Alabama’s Supreme Court justice has taken a stand and declared the truth in an extremely hostile arena.

Could this be the first domino falling? Like John the Baptist, is this lone judge is paving the way for something greater–the eradication of the most evil of all “non” laws Roe v. Wade?

A little background:

According to Lifesitenews.com, “Amy Hamilton sued after doctors repeatedly failed to administer ultrasounds. When an eventual ultrasound showed her child was unusually small and had developed a small fold at the back of his neck – a possible sign of severe anemia and hydrops, which can cause congestive heart failure – she requested to be referred to a perinatologist at another clinic but was refused.

On March 10, 2005, her son was stillborn.”

In a turn of events that has pro-life advocates around the country very excited, Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker wrote this majority opinion on Friday stating that Amy Hamilton does have the right to pursue a wrongful death claim even though a lower court said she did not. The lower court said since the “fetus” was not at a stage where he could survive outside the womb on his own, he was “non-viable.” They based their decision on the wording and reasoning behind Roe v. Wade.

Three Alabama Supreme Court justices disagreed, and basing their decision on a 1973 Alabama Supreme Court ruling AND the wording of our Declaration of Independence (indirectly by quoting Alabama’s Constitution), they said:

“Roe’s viability rule was based on inaccurate history and was mostly unsupported by legal precedent. Medical advances since Roe have conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development. And together, Alabama’s homicide statute, the decisions of this court, and the statutes and judicial decisions from other states make abundantly clear that the law is no longer, in Justice Blackmun’s words, ‘reluctant … to accord legal rights to the unborn..’

“For these reasons, Roe’s viability rule is neither controlling nor persuasive here and should be rejected by other states until the day it is overruled by the United States Supreme Court.”

It’s rare we get to write an article about a “pro-life” ruling that ends on such an optimistic note. Justice Parker adheres to the rule of law, or natural law, when citing the Declaration of Independence that “each person has a God-given to life” and points to Roe v. Wade’s argument about the viability of the fetus. As Parker (and ironically, Blackmun) states, now that science has “conclusively demonstrated that an unborn child is a unique human being at every stage of development,” Roe v. Wade is . . . non-viable.

But what’s next? Now that this domino has fallen, what will happen next in the life argument? For years, the left has been coming to terms with the reality that science was gaining on them, proving the “clump of cells” was a life. Some of their own spokespeople have admitted publicly that it is a life, for example Camille Paglia, in this astoundingly honest (and horrifying) piece. If they accept this science, what then will be their argument?

The linchpin seems to be “the will of the mother.” If she wants the child, he has a right to life. If she doesn’t want the child, he does not. Only in the most abusive relationships does such a situation occur that one person’s desire represents total control over another human being’s very existence. In this Alabama case, the mother wanted her child who then died due to medical malpractice. She sued, it went to court and set into motion a victory for life. However, approximately 4,000 times a day, other mothers don’t want their children so they “legally” have them killed . . .  in the name of privacy, reproductive rights, and control.

Liberty Council’s Matt Staver is correct: Roe v. Wade may not be long in the law books. The big “but” is this–human nature will not change with the decision of a court. We have educated our women into believing the narcissistic worldview that they are the center of their universe, what they feel is what is true, and that we are evolved from random matter with the sole purpose to gratify ourselves in any way possible while we are here.

With Roe gone, what will take its place?

Which is why we pray and fight for personhood based on the 14th amendment to fill that void.



  • Cecil_S

    I can hear some angels starting to sing…

  • Gregg Jackson

    The 14th Amendment already guarantees no innocent person be denied equal protection of the laws and due process. All that is required to stop child murder is for governors of each state to enforce the inalinable right to life for all innocent persons from conception which science has proven human life begins to natural death. We dont need to wait for any court on this one since courts don’t make law and no governor or president needs authorization from any court at any level to stop child murder.

  • Gayle A Goble

    Very well written Jen!  Thank you!

  • Givemelibertyor

    Looks like Santorum had some pretty Romney-esqur things to say about abortion before he ran for office:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/02/21/rick-santorum-abortion_n_1291634.htmll