What goes around comes around . . . . or so they say. The subject of abortion as a means of “contraception” has come to light with Rick Santorum as an emerging candidate for the U.S. Presidency and the demand by the Obama regime under Obama-Care that all health-care organizations fund both contraception and abortions. The emergence of this conflict is similar to suggesting that a sound economic policy would be to simply assassinate President Obama and all of his cronies who are pushing to increase taxation as a method to heal our nation’s economic crisis. Yes; it would eliminate the problem, but it is hardly the method by which a civilized nation goes about its business. Oddly enough though; the policy of using abortion as a form of contraception is eerily similar to the goal of Adolph Hitler and his Nazi regime: to eliminate those persons who are perceived to be burdensome to a chosen and privileged class.
Abortion is not the only problem that we face; yet the approach to deal with the issue through “executive order” is an all-too-familiar methodology under the current administration. When we examine economic history, facts are facts: only twice in the history of the United States of America and all other industrialized nations since 1900 has an increase in taxation caused an increase in government income. Those two times were when progressive taxation was initially implemented to fund World War I; and when after the war the United States was in its worst depression in history because all of the soldiers came home and there was no work to be found. Presidents Harding and Coolidge LOWERED TAXES TO JUMP-START THE ECONOMY (Please copy this to all government officials with a “D” after their names) and the depression ended less than 16 months after it began. After that our government used progressive taxation as a never-ending fountain of youth. When the Great Depression began in 1929 President Roosevelt used government taxation as a vehicle for recovery and it never worked. The fact is that THE GREAT DEPRESSION HAS NEVER ENDED and our “prosperous” periods were when we lowered taxes, increased government income, lowered unemployment, and raised the standard of living . . . . . at least until the next tax hike. Effectively; these prosperities were periods of less suffering but they invited greater action in the same direction. Unfortunately; every time that lower taxation was implemented and successful, it was then followed by boosting taxation and spending; thus recreating the crisis that had just been diverted.
But I digress.
Let’s be frank. Under no circumstances can a rational person; even a Reaganesque Republican, condone the killing of innocent persons who carry an alternative political position. It is our goal to fairly contemplate the alternatives and make a decision based on fact and not conjecture. For this reason I have come to the conclusion that my candidacy for the Presidency of the United States of America is short-lived and I am willing to accept nomination to the Supreme Court when Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down next year. As a portion of my resume I submit the following as my abbreviated ruling in the case of “BO v. Babe.”
123 U.S. ABC
3.14159 S.Ct. 01-01-13
BO, DNC, et al
Babe et al, Apellants,
Argued since the Ancient Greeks
Reargued on a daily basis
Decided November 6, 2012
An unborn child (Babe) has brought before this Court a class action challenging the constitutionality of the application of this Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 959, and Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179. This action is brought for the purpose of providing this unborn child standing to plead for an opportunity to be given birth and to confront the challenges that we all face as living creatures in the world as we know it.
Babe was conceived on a date that need not be specified. Simply put; Babe was conceived thousands of times on every day since the entry of the afore-referenced rulings. The unfortunate circumstance for so many is simply the fact that they were never able to offer a plea before this Court. Babe has accepted this daunting task and claims to fully deserve to enjoy the rights that are guaranteed to each living human being as codified in the United States Constitution and the attendant Bill of Rights.
The Plaintiff/Appellee BO, et al, has pled before this court that those rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States and to human beings in general do not specifically belong to an unborn child and that said child only gains those rights upon birth. This argument is sadly displaced and often confuses the general public when this matter becomes of issue. Chief Justice Blackmun even acknowledged in the original opinion in Roe that a State had the ability to offer these rights to an unborn child at the moment that said child became viable. This concept of viability is based upon the child’s perceived ability to survive outside of the mother’s womb. In 1973 the point of viability was estimated to be after approximately twenty-four (24) weeks of gestation. Since that time medical technology and other factors have caused that estimation to be moved back to as early as twenty (20) weeks. Under these facts and circumstances we therefore have the responsibility to provide individual rights to children after twenty weeks.
We are also faced with the necessary margin of error concerning a doctor’s estimation of the gestational period for an unborn child. It is necessary to include a period of twenty-six (26) days to account for this error which brings us to the conclusion that a State must have the ability to effectively provide rights to an unborn child at sixteen (16) weeks of gestation and still be consistent with this Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling. This does not mean that we have to stop there. It is the Appellant’s position that this is where the contest shall begin.
The concept of establishing a protectable right to life at the point of viability was in its day a useful and practical tool. That was then and this is now. We have since been blessed to learn that the people on one side of the fence; those seeking to rid themselves of this burden of carrying a child to term, now have a vastly improved marvel of medical technology at their hands. Simply put; a woman now knows very quickly that she is or is not pregnant; or at least she has certain physical peculiarities that cause her to suspect same. This raises the question of whether it is reasonable to assign a time-table to determine when a woman must make the choice of ridding herself of this burden or accepting the responsibilities that have been dealt.
It is at this point that the arguments are raised concerning rape, incest, and other unfortunate circumstances that will never cease to exist. It is nevertheless the position of this court that those facts and circumstances are; gratefully, exceptions to the rule. With all due respect; these exceptions to the rule; meaning those circumstances that are beyond the normal day-to-day burdens that we face, are such that we must assign the responsibility to those unfortunate victims that they must be swift in notifying the proper authority of their circumstance and explain the cause that led them to this predicament. Under no circumstance can we ignore the pleas made by these victims. By the same token; under no circumstance can we ignore the existence of a new and living human being. It must therefore be the responsibility of a court of law to determine if and when an unfortunate late-term abortion is prudent. Only after weighing all of the facts and circumstances in an expeditious manner can such a tribunal determine the best available course of action.
With all that in mind, we now face the ultimate and final dilemma: when does a woman’s right to determine whether or not to carry a child end? More specifically; when does the unborn infant’s right to life outweigh the wishes of the prospective mother? As noted above; the 1973 answer to that question by seven out of nine justices was at the point of viability. Since that time we have learned that an unborn child gains the ability to feel pain at a much earlier date. This therefore suggests that we are condoning the vicious and brutal murder of unborn human beings with nary a care or any notion of responsibility. We are therefore faced with a significant incentive to push the date that an unborn child gains rights back from sixteen weeks to an earlier threshold.
The two goals, the two perspectives are therefore staring each other in the face. The child has a yearning to survive, to live, and to grow. The woman has a desire to rid herself of this unintentional burden. The government perspective is to protect and defend all living persons. The penultimate question is: When does the child’s interest outweigh that of the prospective mother and provide proper cause for government intervention?
It is the position of this Court that the child has a heart-beat commencing between nineteen and twenty-one days after conception. This heart-beat cannot be achieved without significant development of the brain of this independent living human being. There is no evidence to suggest when that living human being can feel pain and therefore no specific determination can be made.
It is the position of this Court that a woman with reasonable self-awareness will gain sufficient notice that she may in fact be pregnant within thirty (30) days after conception based on biological and physiological indicators that only the woman will be aware of and otherwise able to perceive.
Based on these parameters it is the position of this Court that a woman has a responsibility both to herself and to the unborn embryo that occupies her womb to affirmatively gain a medical determination regarding whether or not she is pregnant and to decide whether she will carry the child to term within forty-five (45) days of gestation. At any time after that date she has the responsibility to plead before the proper court for an exception to that rule. She must provide specific facts and details that will persuade the hearing judge or magistrate to determine that the facts and circumstances are sufficient that the woman’s right to be free of this burden comparatively outweigh the unborn child’s right to grow and mature and be born into this world. As each day passes, the woman’s responsibility to offer affirmative evidence and proper cause to end her pregnancy will grow in accelerating proportion.
It must be noted that this opinion is not based upon any application of religious principles and/or mandates. This ruling is based simply upon a balancing of the burdens that each of the parties face. There are likely to be many final determinations that appear to be harsh and unjust. We nevertheless conclude that providing an unborn child standing based upon a presumed will to live will cause a significant reduction in these harsh and unjust conclusions. It is therefore the opinion of this Court that these standards are reasonable and best serve the interests of every interested party. To those unborn children; you now have standing before every court in the United States of America. To those who are unfortunately burdened with an unwanted pregnancy; you clearly have duties and obligations both to yourselves and to the unborn. You need to make a decision concerning the life of this independent living human being in a period that is admittedly short; but is nevertheless reasonable.
IT IS SO ORDERED.