A ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court has called the landmark United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision Roe v. Wade“patently illogical,” declaring that a preborn child is a “person” under law, whose intentional death can be punished by means of execution with a guilty verdict against the killer.
“[Alabama Supreme Court] Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade – the 1973 ruling that created a ‘right’ to abortion,” WND reported.
Saying ‘no’ to Roe …
Parker indicated in a special concurrence that the SCOTUS judges’ ruling in their infamous 45-year-old decision created a right that never should have been granted.
“I write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,” Parker declared in his concurrence in the Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion in the case Jessie Livell Phillips vs. the State of Alabama, obtained by Liberty Counsel. “I urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.”
He corroborated the recent reasoning of Alabama’s highest court in a capital punishment lawsuit, which maintained that “unborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law” – a direct contradiction to SCOTUS’s ruling that has resulted in the deaths of more than 60 million preborn children over the past four-and-a-half decades.
“[Roe v. Wade is] without historical or constitutional support – carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child’s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman’s ‘right’ to abortion,” Parker stated. “This judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law … and common law of the states.”
Parker then urged SCOTUS to take action steps to make things right – especially now … with what it knows from the field of medicine about preborn children.
“It is my hope and prayer that the United States Supreme Court will take note of the crescendoing chorus of the laws of the states in which unborn children are given full legal protection and allow the states to recognize and defend the inalienable right to life possessed by every unborn child – even when that right must trump the ‘right’ of a woman to obtain an abortion,” Parker expressed in his opinion. “[By giving preborn children broad legal protections – including under Alabama’s capital murder statutes] – we affirm, once again, that unborn children are persons with value and dignity equal to that of all persons.”
Right to life … not to death
He backed Alabama Supreme Court’s October 19 ruling, which affirmed the lower state court’s jury verdict unanimously recommending the death sentence for Jessie Livell Phillips – who was convicted in the Marshall Circuit Court of the capital offense of intentionally murdering his wife, Erica Phillips, and their preborn baby.
“[The] obvious truth [is] that unborn children are people – and thus entitled to the full protection of the law – [and the court’s decision to reject the defendants’ arguments] that the unborn child he murdered, Baby Doe, was not a ‘person’ under Alabama law, [was correct],” the Alabama court reasoned in its opinion rejecting Phillips’ defense.
In coming to this conclusion, the court also rejected the reasoning behind SCOTUS’s Roe v. Wade ruling.
“The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child’s death because the child was not a ‘person,” WND’s Bob Unruh pointed out. “The fault in the Roedecision was cited by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion, [and] said the justices didn’t have the scientific evidence to determine if an unborn baby is a person, but ‘personhood’ is the foundation of the case.”
With today’s medical knowledge about the full humanity of preborn children that justices did not have 45 years ago, Roe could be in serious trouble in the near future – upon review.
“[If the] suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment,” Blackburn explained in the opinion.
Cases cascading against Roe
Another recent ruling also contended that there was an erroneous reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision.
“In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Alabama law banning the gruesome, second-trimester abortion procedure in which limbs are removed from a baby’s body in the womb,” Unruh pointed out. “At the time, Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in his opinion that he was bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent to rule against the state, writing that ‘dismemberment’ is the best description of the procedure – which clinically is known as dilation and extraction.”
Carnes went on to call the history of SCOTUS’s rulings on abortion cases an “aberration” of constitutional law.
“In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he decried in the August opinion.
Similar reasoning was given in a different discourse on abortion in the opinion, as Judge Joel Dubina sided with SCOTUS Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in their argument in the Gonzales v. Carhart case.
“I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence – [in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade] – has no basis in the Constitution,” Thomas wrote.
Durbina stressed his qualms with SCOTUS, and it can be noted that politically correct terms – such as “choice” and “women’s rights” – had no place in the Alabama court’s opinion.
“The problem I have – as noted in the Chief Judge’s opinion – is that I am not on the Supreme Court, and as a federal appellate judge, I am bound by my oath to follow all of the Supreme Court’s precedents – whether I agree with them or not,” Dubina expressed in writing. “This case involves a method of abortion that is clinically referred to as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E) – or dismemberment abortion, as the state less clinically calls it. That name is more accurate because the method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was – until then – a living unborn child.”
Alabama has a recent history of going head-to-head with Roe.
“[A] year ago, eight members of the Alabama Supreme Court revived a wrongful death claim against a physician – even though the life that was lost was that of a ‘pre-viable’ unborn child,” Unruh recounted. “That ruling set the state in direct conflict with the Roe v. Wade decision, [as] the Alabama judges at the time criticized the Roe decision’s ‘incoherent standard’ of viability.”
In the Phillips case, preborn children are treated just as they should be – as children.
“The newest opinion notes that Alabama law states an unborn child is a person under the state’s intentional murder statute,” Unruh stressed.
Major takeaways from Alabama …
The God-given and biblical right to life given to children inside and outside of the womb – as pointed out by the Alabama Supreme Court – was commended and supported by one of the nation’s leading Christian legal groups.
“Justice Parker wrote separately to emphasize how broadly and consistently the law and judicial decisions in Alabama and around the country protect the rights of unborn children,” Liberty Counsel stated, according to WND.
Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver expressed optimism that the problematic reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision could result in more and more lower courts in states across the nation rejecting its rationale legalizing abortion – which could ultimately result in overturning the landmark decision.
“There is a growing chorus of voices urging the Supreme Court to overrule its abortion decisions,” Staver asserted Friday in a Liberty Counsel news release. “The Supreme Court has created a constitutional aberration and caused incalculable harm by its abortion decisions. In 1992, Justice Kennedy voted with the majority to overrule Roe v. Wade, and then flipped his vote 30 days before the opinion was released to uphold Roe. It is time to correct course and overrule this horrible chapter in American and Supreme Court history.”
The legal expert commended Parker’s boldness in butting heads with the nation’s highest court concerning its flawed and outdated abortion precedent.
“We applaud Justice Tom Parker in calling on the Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and once again protect precious children, women and families,” Staver expressed. “Abortion is simply a euphemism created by activists to soften what it really is – the murder of innocent unborn children.”
He stressed that Americans should do all they can to make sure that millions of innocent preborn children are no longer slaughtered with the backing of the law.
“We must stop this human genocide,” Staver continued. “We must demand that the Supreme Court undo the horrendous ruling and make the womb a safe place again in America. As we hear about the horrible descriptions of the dismemberment of Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi, every breathing person naturally shutters. Yet, every day in America, helpless, preborn children are dismembered while they are still alive. We, too, must shutter at this horrible act and stop it.”
Justice for the preborn
As an associate justice of the Alabama’s highest court, Parker is currently in a race to become the state’s chief justice after winning the state primary in June.
“[A] person is a person – regardless of age, physical development or location,” Parker declared in his concurrence. “Baby Doe had just as much a right to life as did [mother] Erica Phillips. … Phillips was sentenced to death for the murder of two persons; Erica and Baby Doe were equally persons. In spite of voluminous state laws recognizing that the lives of unborn children are increasingly entitled to full legal protection, the isolated Roe exception stubbornly endures.”
He then took aim at renegade left-leaning SCOTUS judges.
“Some liberal justices on the United States Supreme Court adamantly defend the isolated Roe exception,” Parker added. “I have written extensively explaining why the Roe exception lacks legal foundation and is patently illogical. [The ruling] stands as an indictment against the United States Supreme Court. [The only way legalized abortion in the U.S. can continue is if SCOTUS Justices] insist – against all scientific evidence and reason – that unborn children are not human.”