The Fundamentals

Something that often gets misconstrued by politicians, judges, and citizens is the fact that the American government is predicated on 2 simple ideas. The 1st is that people have the right to do anything they want so long as it does no harm to others and what is considered harm must be well defined in a law approved by our elected officials or our own vote.

The 2nd is that the government has no rights except those explicitly given to it by law approved by our elected officials or our own vote.

In our form of government the government must justify everything they do through a law that says they can do whatever they are doing and the people can do anything they want so long as a law does not disallow it.

Religious Reasoning

The opinion in Dobbs says that there is no right within the 14^th Amendment that would extend to an abortion. I would say that opinion is due to the fact that those that wrote the opinion present themselves as persons that believe the American people’s rights are only those given per se in the Constitution and its amendments. This was one of the fears that the original writers of the Constitution were concerned about and that's why they included the 10th Amendment where it is specifically stated that the people have a per se right to all rights NOT disallowed by a Constitution. They realized that governments and government officers seeking more power would tend to think that the people’s rights are small islands surrounded by government power instead of the government being a small island of power surrounded by an ocean of the rights of the people.

Using this philosophy that the Founders feared and looking back into the distant past could allow the courts to rule women can not vote, allow husbands to beat their wives, keep blacks in slavery, allow us to try women as witches and put them to death, prevent women from owning land, allow men to sell their wives in the town square, etc.

The founding of the United States is a very unique event and operating philosophy in it's time. It was unique enough that our federal laws were not in any sense based on the common law of England. The common law of England said that the head of the government was the "King" and the government it self was an unelected hierarchical fundamentally nepotistic religious government while the US government had no one head of the government and all the political leadership positions were elected and no monetary support or specific laws favoring or specifically disfavoring any religion was allowed and no laws were allowed to interfere with the practice by the individual of that individuals religion.

But we know that the kings of England are religious leaders because

“Henry VIII approved the Act of Succession and the Act of Supremacy, both in 1534, the fact that the King is ″the single ultimate head of the Church of England termed Anglicana Ecclesia″ was acknowledged by these documents making all common law since that time enacted by the religious head of the Church of England and that has continued on even to today as shown by the statement of the Church of England: ”

(https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-services/legislation)

“ From that time to the beginning of the twentieth century, all Church legislation (other than by Canon) was by Act of Parliament. The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 gave the Church Assembly the power to legislate by Measure, with Parliament keeping the power to consider the Measures (but not to amend them) and to decide whether or not they should be presented to the Sovereign for the Royal Assent. The Synodical Government Measure 1969 transferred the powers of the Church Assembly to the General Synod (with Parliament's powers unchanged). The 1969 Measure also transferred the power of the Convocations of Canterbury and York to legislate by Canon to the new General Synod. ”

So we know for certain that the common law developed since at least 1534 was developed based on the enforcement of laws dictated by the leader of the Church of England.

And in the US we do not allow laws that would violate the 1^st Amendments demand that “Congress shall pass no law respecting an estashment of religion, . . .”. This wording indicates that the people who wrote the constitution no longer wished to be ruled by the dictates of the Church of England and thus the judiciary must no longer consider English common law which was developed on principles repugnant to our Constitution as being applicable to the laws of the United States. Based on that any judicial consideration in this case should be based on what the writers of the law were attempting to accomplish rather than what the leader of the Church of England had ingrained into their laws.

Our government was formed into three separate branches each with its own job and ability to check the other branches. This is another antithesis of English common law and therefore relying on English common law precedent is repugnant to the concept of a Republic of equal peoples with three coequal branches of that government.

In addition the common-law opinions were from the mind of those that believed everybody had a "place" in the structure of society and were not to challenge those that were designated as being above them without fear of being subject to the full force and fury of those "above" them and were thus subject to the opinion of individuals that had been placed "above" them instead of having to follow laws that were approved by the people's elected representatives. The common law was forced on the people by the opinion of a very minor number of people in the government who believed they owed no allegiance or consideration to those "lesser" than their position in society.

By accepting these common-law opinions what it does is it allows the courts to pick and choose opinions that suit their particular definition of whatever they are ruling on without giving consideration to the fact that what they are choosing is the opinions of dictatorial governments which is the antithesis of the American system but gives those that demand that others follow what they believe an opportunity to pick and choose through history to find the opinion that backs up what they believe America is instead based on what the laws written by the peoples elected representatives agreed upon and the intent of those laws. This is especially true when the common law is obviously based on the teachings of the Christian bible.

Based on the fact that in this matter the Common Laws of England are a violation of the Establishment clause of the 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution and their use in a legal decision is repugnant to the sacrifice of all those that faught and died defending FREEDOM OF RELIGION and thus should not be allowed.

Examining What The Writers Meant

Examining the opinion in Dobbs using the US and Wyoming Constitution's and laws begins first by acknowledging that the Wyoming Constitution acknowledges in Article 1, Section 37 that the U.S. Constitution "is the supreme law of the land." Based on that we need to find out what the U.S. Constitution says is the minimum we can do in any situation.

In order to understand what the laws that have been made in the past or even the present mean to us we must first understand what the words used are and what they meant to the writers at the time the laws were written. Relying on opinions that were published at the time the laws in the late 1700s and late 1800s were written only tells us what those who had a penchant for publishing their views thought. It does not indicate in any sense what the "body" of legislators intended to accomplish since not all of them publish their views on all subjects and in many cases there are opposing opinions published about what the intent was. Without complete guidance by having the opinion of all the legislators involved we must rely on the wording used in the writing because the one thing we do know is that ultimately all the legislators approved that wording regardless of the various differences of opinions that may have been present.

In order to understand what the people who voted for the laws agreed should be done our first effort must be to flesh out the words meenings.

US Constitution Preamble and
WY Article 1 Section 1

First, we begin with the preamble to the US Constitution, that part of the constitution which describes what the objective of the government of the US was defined as and thus what the minimum for all government action would be. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787 and is:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” [emphasis mine]

In addition Wyomings first article spells out the ultimate purpose of the Wyoming government is and what the people can ultimately do if the government goes bad

“Article 1, Section 1 Power inherent in the people.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness; for the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.” [emphasis mine]

At the US level (the supreme law of the land accordong to the Wyoming Constitution) we need to understand what the writers of the Constitution thought the term "Welfare" meant. To do that we look at the dictionary from 1768 where it defines Welfare as:

“WELFARE. / [well and fare ]
Happiness; success; prosperity.Addison. ”

Where in this definition does it say this has anything to do with your health or wellness? We will start with the word happiness:

“HAPPINESS./ [from happy]
1. Felicity; state in which the desires are satisfied. Hooker.
2. Good luck; good fortune.
3. Fortuitous elegance. Denbam. ”

In their definition of happiness we find the words "good fortune" implying the good part of whatever fortune is. In 1768 that was:

“FORTUNE. S [fortuna Lat.]
1.The power suppose it to distribute the loss of life according to her own humor. Shakesp
2. The good or ill that befalls man. Bentley.
3. The chance of life; means of living. Swift
4. Event; success good or bad. Temple
5. Estate; possessions. Shakesp.
6. The portion of a man or woman. O?way.
7. Futurity; future events. Cowley. ”

And ill in those days was defined as:

“ILL. a. [contracted from Evil.]
1. Bad in any respect; contrary to good, whether physical or moral; evil. Bacon
2. Sick; disordered; not in health. Temple. ”

We can then say the people that voted for the US Preamble and specifically for this wording meant they wanted any laws the US government enforced do no harm to the people but rather tended to keep the people good physically, and protect them from sickenss and bad health.

And in 1890 what did the writers of the state of Wyomings constitution mean? Shifting to the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

Peace and Happiness in the Websters dictionary have to do with things like war, riots, good luck, good fortune, etc. Nothing really related to this subject. Safety however does:

“SA'FETY, noun
1. Freedom from danger or hazard; as the safety of an electrical experiment; the safety of a voyage.
I was not in safety nor had I rest. Job 3:26.
2. Exemption from hurt, injury or loss. We crossed the Atlantic in safety ”

And so we know that Wyoming must have laws that help prevent hurt or injury as well.

While there is no “per se” right to have an abortion in the U.S. Constitution there is an absolute “per se” OBLIGATION that the government, both federal and state, “promote the general Welfare” and in addition Wyoming has an absolute “per se” OBLIGATION to have laws that are "instituted for the peoples safety" which absolutely includes the right of the people to have laws that protect and maintain their life and health as well has the right to defend their own life as they see fit and protect themselves from physical and mental harm since the government has admitted they are incapable of defending an individual and can only prosecute the offenders after they have done wrong.

Reproduction Obligation
US Amendment 10
WY Article 1 Section 36

The next question is, what obligation is there in our laws that requires people to reproduce? There is none. This is where the 10^th Amendment comes in to play. There is no requirement to reproduce what so ever, so the government has no interest in controlling reproduction and thus the 10^th Amendment leaves the rights to reproduction to the people by law!

And in accordance with the US Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution the two governments have no authority to make any laws contrary to keeping people as healthy as possible and no laws that would require people to reproduce.

Who Can Kill Who

The next question is, is there any per se obligation in law on the federal level that we do not kill other persons? The 5^th and the 14^th amendment's to the Constitution require that the government ensure that no one ". . . be deprived of life . . .without due process of law". the 5^th Amendment makes this applicable to the federal government and the 14^th amendment makes it applicable to the state governments. At the time the Constitution was written the 14^th amendment was not written and thus not part of the Constitution so we need to look at the 5^th amendment first. And in the case of abortions this would raise the question of when does life start.

First, we need to know when life starts!

The 5^th Amendment (1791)

The 5^th amendment was ratified in 1791 so we need to look to our 1768 dictionary to see what they were talking about as far as "life". It was defined as:

1768
"LIFE./plural /lives. [Itp.an, to live, Sax.]
1. Union and co-operation of soul with body. Genesis.
2. Present state. Cowley.
3. Enjoyment, or profession of terrestrial existence. Prior.
4. Blood, the supposed vehicle of life.
5. Conduct; manner of living with respect to virtue or vice. Pope .
6. Condition; manner of living with respect to happiness and n?ifery. Dryden.
7. Continuance of our present state. Locke.
8. The living form; resemblance exactly copied. Brown.
9. Exact resemblance. Deiihum
10. General state of man. Milton.
11. Common occurrences; human affairs; the course of things. Ajcham.
12. Living person. Shakesp.
13. Narrative of a life past. Pope.
14. Spirited; briskness; vivacity; resolution. Sidney.
15. Animated existence; animal being. Thomjom. ”

In 1768 Life was defined as a living person. And what did they mean by a living person? They thought that living meant:

“LI'VING [from live]
1. Support; maintenance; fortune on which one lives. Sidney
2. Power of continuing life. L'Estrange
3. Live-lihood Hubberd's Tale
4. Benefice of a clergyman. Spenser. ”

The living part of their definition of life is self reference back to life and only adds in that the word living means that life is continuing on. The ability to continue on is just "power of continuing".

When addressing something as a person they were talking about a man or a woman or any human being?

“PERSON. / [p.isinne, Fr persona, Lat.j
1. Individual or particular man or woman Ltcie.
2. Man or woman considered as opposed to things Spratt.
3. Human Being. Drydem.
4. Man or woman considered as present, acting or suffering. Shakesp.
5. A general loose term for a human being. Csarisa.
6 One's self; not a tepie "entative". Dryden.
7. Exterior appearance. Shakesp
8. Man or woman represented in a fictitious dialogue. Baker.
9. Character. Hayward.
10. Character of office South.
11. [In grammar] The quality of the noun that modifies the verb. Sidney ”

There is no 1768 definition of the phrase "human being", so looking the definition of human and being we have:

“HUMAN, a. [humanus Lat]
1. Having the qualities of a man. Swift
2. Belonging to man Milton. ”

“BE'ING. / [from be.]
1. Existence; opposed to nonentity. Davies.
2. A particular state or condition. Pope.
3. The person existing. Dryden ”

So the term human being does not tell us where they consider the start of life is, just that it is something that exists in the form we know as a human. Since they do not as of this point have a definition of what a human is other than the generic statement of man we are left with just the term man and the term woman as being a person. The term woman was defined as:

“WOMAN. S [pirman, pimman. Sax]
1. The female of the human race. Shakejp. Otway.
2. A female attendant of a person of rank. Shakesp. ”

And their definition of woman again does not give us any indication of when life starts. Moving on to man we find it was defined as:

“ MAN S [man, mon, Sax ]
1. Human being. Creech.
2. Not a woman. Shakesp.
3. Not a boy Drytlcn
4. A servant; an attendant; a dependant. Raleigh, Crasley,
5. A word of familiarity bordering on contempt. Shakesp
6. It is used in a loose signification like the French on, one, any one. Tilltson
7. One of uncommon qualifications. AdtHfen
8. A human being qualiftud in any particular manner. 1 Samuel
9. Individual Watts
10. Not a beast. Creech
11. Wealthy or independant person. Tillotfoi
12. A moveable piece at chefs or draughts.
13. Man of war. A ship of war. Careio ”

The phrase "Not a boy" will take us closer to the time of the beginning of life. And we find that the word boy was defined as:

“ BOY.S
1. A male child;not a girl
2. One in the state of adolescence; older than an infant DryJen.
3. A word of contempt for young men Ltske ”

Doing the same for a girl we find it was defined as:

“ GIRL S. [Ifl???????ck, karbuua. a woman.]
A young woman, or child. Skakesp ”

And that gives us two words to work with. Infant and child to see if either of those takes us to a point that describes where they thought life began.

First looking at the word child we see that it was defined as:

“ CHILD S "in the plural Children". [cild,Sax.]
1. An infant, or very young person. Denham, Wake.
2. One in the line of filiation, opposed to the parent. Addifon.
3. A girl child. Shakesp.
4. Any thing, the product or effect of another. Shakesp.
5. To be with Child. To be pregnant. ”

The word infant applies to both girls and boys and its definition was:

“ INFANT S [infans, Lat.]
1. A child from the birth to the end of the seventh year.
2. [In law.] A young person to the age of one and twenty. ”

And they considered birth as:

“ BIRTH, S. [beohy, Saxon.]
1. The act of coming into life. Dryden.
2. Extraction; lineage. Denham.
3. Rank which is inherited by descent. Dryden.
4. The condition in which any man is born. Dryden.
5. Thing born. Ben. Johnson.
6. The act of bringing forth Mihin ”

So we can trace back through their language usage to know that in the 5^th Amendment they are talking about entities (human beings) from the time of bringing forth from the mother onwards and terminating when there is no more life.

Very often the concept of quickening is brought up as a point where you can no longer perform an abortion. Looking at quickening closer we find that in 1768 the base word Quick was defined as:

“ QUICK, a. [cpic, Saxon.]
1 Living; not dead. Common Prayer.
2. Swift; nimble; done with celerity. Hooker.
3. Speedy; free from delay. Milton.
4. Active; sprited; ready. Clarendcn ”

In its form as a verb it is defined as:

“ To QUICKEN. v. a. [eptecan. Sax]
1. To make alive. Psalms.
2. To hasten; to accelerate. Hayzcard.
3. To To open; to actuate; to excite. South. ”

“ To QUICKEN, v. u.
1. To become alive; as, a woman quickens with child. Sandyi.
2. To move with activity.Pope. ”

There is no time frame or physical property defined as being quickening. The only thing it says is that the concept QUICK is a part of a Christian prayer and as such is not applicable because it violates the 1^st Amendments Establishment clause.

In the first sense the phrase To Quicken is again, a Religious definition with no applicability because of the 1^st Amendments Establishment clause.

In the second sense it means to come alive, and as above this is when there is a human being braught forth from the mother and has the " Power of continuing life" which we now know is actually not feasible before the 3rd trimester, and in the 3rd trimester there is limited ability of our technology to provide the underdeveloped with the "power of continuing life" until that group of cells can do it themselves.

The court says that it is okay to carry this through simply because it has been in place for so long. This attitude of letting a wrong continue on simply because it's been there for so long and it is part of the religion of the people presently in power is quite repugnant to our Constitution. There is no reasoning based on the First Amendment that would allow the government to enforce a Christian arbitrary rule on non-Christians when there is a more logical solution not based on ignorance but rather on the knowledge that we now have. For this reason the concept of quickening being when a woman can first feel motion be removed from the legal system repertoire of excuses to hold onto religious dogmas such as the usage of the "Curse of Ham" to enslave people with a dark skin color.

Governmental Limitations

There are limits on practical matters on any government and one of those limits is that the government has no obligation to protect you from death. That fact is well known and quite logical and enforced by courts/societies since time immemorial let alone during the minuscule lifetime of the United States. The fact of the matter is for the state to protect everyone they would have to supply every human with a protector which cannot be done because who’s going to protect the protectors? And how are they going to guarantee that the protector they supply can actually protect you under all conditions? An example of this is that even though only 51 law enforcement officers are killed through felonious acts each year while on the job we still provide them with automobiles, seat belts, airbags, guns, body armor, uniforms, armored vehicles, face shields, military high caliber automatic weapons, and many other incidental weapons and items because what they do may become dangerous.

We, the government, do not however provide any kind of medical care, birth control, or abortions for pregnant women. And considering that even with abortions available for those with the money to get one there are still 750+ women who die in either childbearing, childbirth, or postpartum problems every year. This is almost 3 times the death rate per 100,000 that law enforcement officers encounter. Imagine that, give LE the right to kill with qualified immunity and take away the right of women to self defense. That hardly qualifies as equality.

It is YOUR obligation to maintain your life which is the logical conclusion from the impossibility of the government preventing your death.

In order to interfere with that “per se” obligation to promote the general Welfare the government must have a compelling interest in allowing you to die or suffer severe mental anguish (PTSD associated with pregnancy problems) or physical harm due to a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with a woman’s right to have an abortion, it has everything to do with the fact that the government has no compelling interest in requiring women to die in childbirth or childbearing or postpartum problems or suffer from extreme mental anguish and suffer the long term brain damage associated with PTSD when pregnant since there is no per se or implied requirement that people reproduce.

I have encountered no claim by the government which has proven a compelling interest in forcing women to die in childbearing, child birth, or postpartum problems. The only claim I have heard and the only claim in the present Supreme Court ruling is that there is a possibility they are harming a possible future life. The problem with that reasoning is that the government cannot guarantee that a pregnancy will result in a living person simply because almost 70% of all pregnancies miscarry on their own and the government has no way to prevent that and has not been funding any significant amount of research into preventing that.

The opinion in Dobbs also mentioned that the 14^th Amendment does not say that women have a right to an abortion. There again they are missing the fact that the 14^th Amendment says laws shall be applied equally and if men can defend themselves from harm then women can also defend themselves from harm.

The US 14^th Amendment And
WY Article 1 Section 6

So, how does the 14^th Amendment Guarantee The Right To An Abortion?

US 14^th Amendment Section 1
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 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. ” (Emphasis are mine)

Wyoming's Article 1 Section 6 “Due process of law.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. ”

Based on the above, what did the writers of the US 14 Amendment and WY Article 1 Section 6 consider a person to be in their day? Well in 1828 Webster produced an updated dictionary and it defined a person as:

“ PERSON, noun per'sn. [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]
1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul.
We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.
A person is a thinking intelligent being.
(Emphasis are mine) ”

So we have a couple of questions such as what is a body and what is a soul? Again, we look to Websters 1828 dictionary:

“ BOD'Y, noun
1. The frame of an animal; . . .
2. Matter, as opposed to spirit”

“SOUL, noun
1. The spiritual, rational and immortal substance in man, which distinguishes him from brutes; that part of man which enables him to think and reason, and which renders him a subject of moral government. The immortality of the soul is a fundamental article of the christian system. Such is the nature of the human soul that it must have a God, an object of supreme affection.
. . .
15 . . . ”

So now we must know what they meant by born. And born in 1828 was defined as:

“ BORN, participle passive of bear. baurn. Brought forth, as an animal.
A very useful distinction is observed by good authors, who, in the sense of produced or brought forth, write this word born; but in the sense of carried, write it borne. This difference of orthography renders obvious the difference of pronunciation.

1. To be born is to be produced or brought into life. ”

We know that they meant brought forth and not carried because of the spelling. So born means brought into life, but what is life? In 1828 it was:

“ LIFE, noun plu lives. [See Live.]
1. In a general sense, that state of animals and plants, or of an organized being, in which its natural functions and motions are performed, or in which its organs are capable of performing their functions.
A tree is not destitute of life in winter, when the functions of its organs are suspended; nor man during a swoon or syncope; nor strictly birds, quadrupeds or serpents during their torpitude in winter. They are not strictly dead, till the functions of their organs are incapable of being renewed.
. . .
4. The present state of existence; the time from birth to death.
. . . ”

So under definition number 1 it is very obvious that they had changed their view in a few short years between the writing of the Constitution and the 14^th amendment, 80 years, to definitively remove the religious common-law implication of quickening from the definition of when life begins.

Apparently those who wrote the Dobbs opinion were unaware that the founders knew about this religious definition being enforced by the Church of England and not wanting to be under the thumb of the church of England they changed the definition of when life begins based on the new knowledge they had that it is our organs that keep us alive and without them we are not alive.

Maintianing our Republic rule of law is the difference between a country of free people and a country of servents to the Politicians in Black.

A few (6) judges deciding that applying their religious views is the proper definiyion regardless of what our elected officials had determined was the proper definition and the American people had voted to approve is the work of people with a dictatorial attitude exclaiming their views as superior to the elected officials and the processes of this Republic. This is how they amend our Constitution without bothering with the actual process that we're supposed to follow.

Now we need to know what the word living meant to the writers:

“ LIV'ING participle present tense [from live.]
1. Dwelling; residing; existing; subsisting; having life or the vital functions in operation; not dead. ”

And to summarize this basically if the entity has organs (which we as humans do) those organs must be capable of performing their functions of being a thinking intelligent being with the exception that during a “swoon or syncope” the functions do not have to be fully operational. We can expand the concept of "swoon or syncope" to include the concept of technological appliances performing biological functions that prior to their development would have left a person dead, such as artifical hearts, pacemakers, etc.

At this point Webster seems to have either misprinted something or excluded something from the definition because he defined “SYN'COPE” as: “SYN'COPIST, noun One who contracts words. “

Which makes absolutely no sense. The present Miriam Webster dictionary defines it as:

“ 1: loss of consciousness resulting from insufficient blood flow to the brain : faint
2: the loss of one or more sounds or letters in the interior of a word (as in fo'c'sle for forecastle) ”

Which makes sense for both its usage in 1868 and at present so basically a thinking intelligent being that is unconscious for any reason (a concept that was not understood at the time) did not indicate death as long as eventually the thinking intelligent being could be returned to their prior conscious state.

That brings us back to the definition of Life where it says “till the functions of their organs are incapable of being renewed”. There is a simple test for this in that the word incapable says that even if they are not functioning fully if mankind's technological appliances or the biological mass itself is able to make them function on their own as a thinking intelligent being then life is present. If not, such as when we unplug the brain dead (we have no technological brain appliance) and the biological mass itself does not bring back a thinking intelligent being then life is NOT present, just as early stage zygotes/embryos are not thinking intelligent beings that can make their organs function on their own and as such have no life.

Based on this we can say that a person is a human being from birth to death. And birth is defined as when a human being is "brought forth" from the mother and its organs are capable of performing their functions. Once this criteria is met it holds until such time as their organs are incapable of being renewed.

Conclusions

The constitution in the case of abortions is "pro-choice" in both the Preamble, the 5th amendment and the 14th amendment because they all say that if the biological mass itself or with the help of technological appliances are not able to make the organs function on their own to result in a thinking intelligent being then there is no life and thus the living woman has all rights and is in no way obligated to reproduce.

If there is no life there then we could well be depriving the woman of life if there was a medical problem without her having her due process rights, as well as denying the woman her liberty to remove a non living biological mass from her body just as we allow people to get shots to remove viruses and bacteria from their body and surgery to remove cancerous biological masses or even organs such as appendix’s.

It’s this exact situation that Roe v Wade defined. They specifically said that in the first trimester there is no possibility of mankind or our technology or the biological mass making itself function as life. During the second trimester there was a low probability that the biological mass or mankind or our technology would be able to make that biological material’s organs function to maintain a thinking intelligent being so an abortion could be performed provided there was a medical or psychological condition that would do irreparable harm to the mother.

And during the third trimester since there was an ever increasing chance that mankind's technology or the biological material itself could have organs capable of being renewed or “the vital functions” operational to indicate that it is a thinking intelligent being and thus no abortion was allowed unless there was a reasonable chance the pregnancy would gravely hurt the mother or physically kill the mother (self defense on the part of the mother).

And although the Constitution does not make a "per se" statement about "pro-choice" or "pro-life" just as it does not make a "per se" statement about self defense or murder it very definitely is "pro-choice" and "pro-self defense" when you read it in the plain language of both the day it was written as well as today. This does require that you understand the English language, but then that’s supposed to be the job of the courts - to interpret our laws as they were understood in their day and as that applies to the knowledge gained since then. It is not the courts prerogative to do a religious end run around their responsibilities to ensure their religious views are bowed down to.

As far as the concept of in the future this biological mass may have intelligence and functioning organs, well – In the future there is a possibility your neighbor or friend may decide to kill you so we should put you in a prison for life to keep your neighbor from killing you? Sounds pretty unreasonable doesn’t it. That’s why we don’t take one persons rights away because some one/thing “might” do or not do something.

What he Dobbs opinion has done as far as the 14^th amendment is say that a possible future human that does not meet the criteria of being a “person” or “human being” has the right to kill/do great bodily harm (including PTSD) to a person (woman) and there is nothing that person (woman) can do about it. This would be equivalent to taking away a man’s self defense arms (such as a gun) and forcing him to live in a jail where all the other prisoners have guns. Some of the prisoners are psychotic killers, some are just regular people. What's the problem? After all, more than likely that man will not be killed so what is the problem?

Also, even though there is no “per se” right to have an abortion, in the U.S. Constitution there is an absolute “per se” OBLIGATION that the government, both federal and state, “promote the general Welfare” which includes the right of every person to protect and maintain their own life since the government has specifically stated and admitted they are incapable of doing that and thus on a personal matter the individual must maintain their welfare as best they can within the limits of the laws.

Although the federal and state governments have an obligation to the public in general the federal and states governments have no obligation to protect anyone in particular from death and bad health. Our Constitution does require that the federal government ensure that all the states ensure that the state protects the general population from societal dangers as defined by law, such as violent crimes against individuals, mob violence, fraudulent dealings, theft, etc.

This fact is well known and quite logical and enforced by the courts since time immemorial let alone during the minuscule lifetime of the United States. The fact of the matter is for the state to protect everyone individually they would have to supply every human with a protector which cannot be done because who’s going to protect the protectors?

Apparently in the Dobbs opinion they don’t actually declare abortions illegal but rather say that is up to the state as to the how when and where of an abortion. Based on this it means that each and every state must use their constitutions in order to make any law on the subject. In addition they basically said that they won’t interfere with whatever a state does because it is up to the people of the state to make decisions like that. This lack of action is Constitutionally invalid because they, the legislative and executive branch have a "per se" OBLIGATION to ensure that the states "promote the general Welfare". We realize that those that wrote the opinion in Dobbs believe that a ruling from a judge in the 1600s who also believed in hanging witches and also believes that performing an abortion when a fetus had died, and thus leaving the dead fetus in the woman which would have killed her, was an atrocity all the while ignoring the laws passed by the people of this country is how they can justify doing this. These 6 judges are truly with no sense of Welfare or for that matter of human dignity and morals.

They also use justification that abortion had been declared illegal in most of the states before Roe v Wade was a good enough reason to over rule Roe v Wade. That would be the equivalent of going back to slavery since technically slavery is still not illegal in the US because of the 13^th amendment and when the country was 1st formed most of the states embraced black slavery. And I am sure that if you go back far enough in English common law you can justify men beating their wives so long as they don’t use anything bigger around than the diameter of their thumb, or taking the vote away from women since it was illegal in all states until Wyoming became a state in 1890, or as far as that goes taking the vote away from anyone who does not own a certain amount of land, and of course that someone must be a white male.

The one thing the writers of the Dobbs opinion have forgotten is that general welfare includes the right to self-defense. Self defense is the only right that is not limited in the sense that you do not have to show that whatever you did was correct for the situation, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what the other thing(s)/person(s) involved would do to you for sure would not result in your death, great bodily harm, or great mental harm. This is inherent in our requirement that a prosecuting attorney must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you did was not in self-defense.

Bruce Williams

HypatianSociety.org

T his article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author.