Monthly Archives: January 2022

ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973: “If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …”

Published by:

ROE v. WADE Opinion, January 22, 1973:

“If … personhood is established, the [pro-“abortion”] case, of course, collapses, …”

ROE v. WADE Opinion: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]  for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

____________________________________________
____________________________________________

United States Supreme Court
ROE v. WADE (1973)
No. 70-18

Argued: December 13, 1971

Reargued: October 11, 1972

Decided: January 22, 1973
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

Appellee (Pro-Life): Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County, State of Texas

Appellant (Pro-“Abortion”): Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey*)

[ * Norma McCorvey later became a born-again Christian and a leading voice for the sanctity of life of the unborn, and against “abortion” ]

 

ROE v. WADE Opinion:

Part IX

A. The appellee [ Texas ] and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157]  for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant [ Jane Roe ] conceded as much on reargument. [FN 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [FN 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.  [ emphasis added; identification of parties to the case in brackets added ]

__________________________________________________

PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING/ABOLISHING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in America

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart during the Second Oral Argument of Roe v. Wade, on October 11, 1972:

“And the basic constitutional question initially is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?”

continued…

“It’s critical to this case, is it not ?”

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

Audio / ROE v. WADE
FULL SECOND ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE US SUPREME COURT
– October 11, 1972
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/18/audio-roe-v-wade-full-second-oral-argument-before-us-supreme-court-october-11-1972/

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

“And the basic constitutional question initially is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it ?”

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, and entirely to the constitutional perspective.”

US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart:

“It’s critical to this case, is it not ?”

Texas Asst Attorney General Robert Flowers:

“Yes, sir, it is, …”

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina Constitutional Law:’
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/05/personhood-and-south-carolina-constitutional-law/

“… nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”

Constitution of the State of South Carolina, Article I, Section 3.

[ emphasis added ]
_________________

South Carolina Constitution
ARTICLE I
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 3. Privileges and immunities; due process; equal protection of laws.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

https://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/A01.pdf

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

‘PERSONHOOD and South Carolina State Law:’
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/02/personhood-and-south-carolina-state-law

“Murder” is the killing of any person

[ emphasis added ]
___________________________

South Carolina Code of Laws
Title 16 – Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 3 – Offenses Against the Person
ARTICLE I – Homicide

SECTION 16-3-10. “Murder” defined.

“Murder” is the killing of any person with malice aforethought, either express or implied.

www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

[ emphasis added ]

__________________________________________________

The word “person” is a legal term of art:

Black’s Law Dictionary (2009): Person = “A Human Being”

__________________________________________________

PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND END CHILD-MURDER BY “ABORTION” IN SOUTH CAROLINA WAS FIRST FILED IN THE SC LEGISLATURE NEARLY 24 YEARS AGO IN 1998, AND HAS BEEN ACTIVE EVERY YEAR SINCE:

[ Report ]
2021-2022 SC Personhood Bills, H.3568 and S.381
23 Years of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina
April 26, 2021

History of Personhood Legislation in South Carolina (1998 – 2021)
http://christiansforpersonhood.com/index.php/2021/11/10/history-of-personhood-legislation-in-south-carolina-1998-2021/

PERSONHOOD is the KEY to ENDING/ABOLISHING Child-Murder by “Abortion” in South Carolina

__________________________________________________

Ignore Roe !

Interpose !
( LesserMagistrate.com )

Establish Justice, Now !

END/ABOLISH Child-Murder by “Abortion” Now !

PASS PERSONHOOD NOW !

“Personhood Act of South Carolina”
( 2021-2022 Session of SC Legislature )

S.381
H.3568
(scstatehouse.gov)

 

God says,

“Thou shalt not kill (murder).”

Exodus 20:13, KJV

 

ChristiansforPersonhood.com

 

Non-tax-deductible contributions may be sent to:

Christians for Personhood
PO Box 12222
Columbia, SC 29211

CP@spiritcom.net