Neighborhood Ministries

Some liberals are promoting the appointment of several more liberal Supreme Justices to enable the Court to restore the right to abortion and allow them to open the door to other liberal policies which they want to enact but can not get the support in Congress to pass them into law. While the Constitution does not state how many justices there should be, it does say the justices should be appointed for life so no President can pack the Court and ram through his agenda. Most presidents only get the opportunity to appoint one or two justices, not enough to change the court unless it is closely balanced like it is now. To add a number of justices to the court solely for the purpose of ramming their agenda through the courts is an open violation of the intent of the Constitution, even though it is not stated. It is a deliberate attempt to get around the Constitution. In addition, the current liberal justices have openly ignored the Constitution in their rulings and it is fairly certain any new liberal justices would do the same. While they claim they are just using a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, their opinions, like in Roe vs  Wade, openly ignore the Constitution. Roe vs Wade was pushed through when two conservative justices were not able to attend and the ruling did not represent a majority of justices on the court.

Liberals are saying it is unconstitutional to overturn Roe vs Wade. On what grounds? Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare the right of women to get a abortion. The Supreme Court also has a history of changing its decisions when new evidence is available or circumstances change. Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional to begin with. The Constitution states that all men are endowed by God with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit to happiness does not give someone the right to deprive another of the right to life and the Constitution states that the government, including the Supreme Court, can not deny anyone those rights. Its excuse was that they could not determine when life began. That is faulty thinking because if they were in doubt, they should have erred on the side of caution, lest someone deprive someone of life and violate the Constitution by mistake. The Supreme Court stated that if it was ever determined when life began, that the ruling would be null and void. A majority of States at that time had defined an unborn baby as a person with rights and so according to the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court decision was null and void in those States. However, the pro-abortion people used the Supreme Court ruling as an excuse to violate those laws and claim exemption from prosecution. They said the Supreme Court ruling overturned those laws, but the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn lawfully enacted State laws unless they violate the Constitution, which they did not. In addition, the pro-abortion people used Roe vs Wade to nullify all laws related to protecting the mother in an abortion, which the Supreme Court decision did not cover. The mother is recognized as a person and  does not lose her rights when she becomes pregnant. In addition, the pro-abortion people have now extended the right to kill the baby up to 28 days after it is born and is lawfully considered a person which not only violates Roe vs Wade, it violates the Constitution.