This Is the Beginning of the End for Roe v. Wade
There has not been a case that is as on track to reverse Roe v. Wade quite like this one. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization came after a challenge against the Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks. The state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow for individual states to ban abortion after the judicially created viability point that has been cited in the past.
One of the prominent reasons Roe v. Wade has been able to remain law for decades is a legal precedent called stare decisis. ACLJ Senior Counsel Andy Ekonomou explains how stare decisis is not a bar for the Supreme Court to use to come out with the right decision in Dobbs:
It is not a bar. It is a judicially created principle that espouses the idea that cases decided the same way should be decided the same way on the same facts of law. But it does not prohibit the Supreme Court or any court to say we got it wrong, and we need to rectify by reversing Roe v. Wade in this case.
The ACLJ is filing multiple amicus briefs in just days on different angles to advocate to overturn the decision in Roe v. Wade. ACLJ Senior Counsel Walter Weber joined Sekulow to discuss our briefs we are filing at the Supreme Court:
One of the problems we face is that the Supreme Court has acted as if it is the Constitution – that whatever it says becomes part of the text. That is not what the Constitution says, of course. The only way to amend the Constitution is by either a state convention or by a proposed amendment from Congress. So, when the Supreme Court says we have a decision, we know it’s wrong, but we are going to follow it anyway. Then what they are saying is that our rulings take a higher priority than the Constitution itself. . . . We’ve also pointed out that there is an irony here in that the Supreme Court, prior to Roe v. Wade, had no problem with abortion being part of the state law homicide and other state regulations. In other words, Roe v. Wade itself did not follow stare decisis. So that would be really weird to say we changed law dramatically in 1973 and now we have to leave that unconstitutional decision in place as a matter of stability.
The ACLJ has been waiting for a case like this one to be able to finally reverse Roe v. Wade and save countless unborn babies' lives. So, we are using all of the resources we can to ensure a win. For the first time ever, we are preparing a brief coming from our European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) to inform the current Supreme Court Justices of the law inside the European Union. ACLJ Senior Counsel CeCe Heil joined Sekulow to discuss the ECLJ brief:
Most people would think that Europe is more liberal than the United States. But on abortion – they are not. . . . We point out that the European court has stated that the European Convention on Human Rights and its right to life does apply to the unborn baby. So, all of the legislation in the 47 member states then has to comply with that. As we see the vast majority – 45 of the 47 member states – of the Council of Europe, they restrict and prohibit abortion well before the point of viability.
The United States has one of the most aggressive stances when it comes to allowing abortions. This has to end. ACLJ Senior Military Analyst and former Chaplain Colonel Wes Smith discussed what is really at play in this case for the right of an unborn child:
Basically, if you end a life – that is killing. Whatever the justification is. It is killing. We need to call it for what it is. And as it is today what they are arguing for – the people who are pro-abortion – they are arguing for state-sanctioned killing. Here is the deal – we believe traditionally in the sacredness of human life. We have a constitutional right to life. What they are trying to do is carve out an exception to the right to life, so that everyone constitutionally has a right to life except this group of people. That is unconscionable that you would say everyone has a right to this – but not the unborn.
If Roe v. Wade is indeed overturned, it will change everything. This case would give the issue of abortion back to the states and be the beginning of the end for abortion. To overturn Roe v. Wade, there would have to be five votes in favor of doing so. Basically, the Justices have to say even with stare decisis that Roe v. Wade is not good law. We hope the Supreme Court stands up for the Constitution and for the unborn. And we are preparing to file our own amicus briefs at the Supreme Court this week to defend life.
Today’s full Sekulow broadcast is complete with further analysis of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case.
Watch the full broadcast below.