CITIZEN DAVE, EDITOR: As a 25 year veteran pro-life activist and leader, political and governmental historian, and constitutional scholar, I have reviewed this 98 page, leaked first draft majority opinion/decision and the following are my opinions and insight.

That was the original plan, to overturn Roe v Wade and in doing so guarantee the ending of legalized abortion throughout the entire United States, once and for all.  The real story is more sinister the more you dig. Unborn children and Pro-Life Americans were betrayed by national pro-life organizations 30 years ago when they started to work against their own founding strategy: establishing Personhood for the unborn. Come to find out, establishing Personhood was the only way to end legalized abortion once and for all in the United States. So, I put this disaster squarely upon them.  So here we are, now 50 years after Roe next year, and legalized abortion will remain. I'm shaking my head and my heart sinks as I write this.  I'm angry and I have plenty of 'choice' words I could say, and after you finish reading this report, I'm sure you will have some also. It's okay to cry....

Is this a win for unborn children? Definitely Not!  Is this a win for the U.S. Constitution, the rule of law, federalism, and the U.S. Supreme Court getting their own house in order? Definitely Yes.  With Roe v Wade only able to be overturned once, could pro-life leaders and legislators have used  a pro-life strategy that would also have guaranteed the ending of legalized abortion once and for all throughout the entire in the United States? Definitely Yes!  Did they? No. 

Is this the end the original pro-life mission to get the U.S. Supreme Court to end legalized abortion throughout the entire U.S.? Definitely Not - but as you will see in this draft Supreme Court decision, the overturning Roe v. Wade (when not done correctly) did not end legalized abortion throughout the entire U.S. That can only be done through establishing the Personhood of the Unborn and this has been known for 50 years!  

THE LEAKED, DRAFT OPINION is 96 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo that can melt most people's brains and easily pop their mental circuit breakers.  So, summarizing and simplifying things where most people can understand is important. Luckily, I have these skills. So here we go.

FIRST THOUGHTS...  

When Pro-Life Americans hear the words "Roe v. Wade is being overturned" - they get so excited their minds and their thinking often instantly checks out - they can easily gloss over the asking of important questions, like, in this instance:

1. WHY did the U.S. Supreme Court apparently decide to overturn Roe and Casey?  and 

2. WILL IT actually end legalized abortion in the United States?

THE SUPREME COURT:   WE SCREWED UP!
(referring to the 1973 Roe & 1992 Casey U.S. Supreme Courts)

The Roe v Wade Decision was an “exercise of raw judicial power”
- page 3 of leaked draft opinion, quoting Justice Byron White's dissenting opinion in Roe v Wade.

Roe was an "abuse of judicial authority.
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start." - page 6

Cases brought before the Court must have a legal foundation to support it.  Judges are only supposed to 'rule on' or 'decide' a case based, not upon their own views, but only upon a solid legal foundation made up of prior Court decisions (precedents) and legal history.  While in 1992, the abortion case Casey was built upon the foundation of a prior case Roe v. Wade in 1973, Roe v. Wade itself had no foundation - no court decisions, no legal history or tradition, nothing in the affirmative to support the 'abortion right' as a constitutional right. In fact, it outlines in the draft decision, that the last 500 years of legal history in American and England showed abortion to have always be a crime, not a right.

The Court feels that, for reasons of clear overreach, a severe lack upholding proper judicial protocols, AND ignoring historical precedent, the Roe and Casey cases were really, really bad decisions that must be overturned.  SO, THEY DID IT FOR TECHNICAL REASONS, NOT FOR THE REASON THAT UNBORN CHILDREN ARE PERSONS (HUMAN BEINGS) AND SHOULD NOT BE MURDERED.  SO, they passed the buck/responsibility on abortion decisions back to the state legislatures and possibly Congress also.

The leaked draft decision does not end legalized abortion in the United States. The draft decision does not effect, alter or accomplish that main pro-life mission. The draft decision basically just ends the 'abortion right' on the federal level and its U.S. Constitutional connection to the 14th Amendment. Where there once was one main battle ground, the federal courts, now there will be 50+ battle grounds in U.S. states and territories. Yeah. Not so excited now huh?

SENDING IT BACK TO THE STATES?   Yes/No, Maybe?  

Yes, but with conditions...  the exact details of which are yet to be determined.  Yes, that means many more court cases.  The U.S. Supreme Court has generally "passed the buck" (responsibility on abortion decisions) back to state legislatures, and possibly Congress also. 

BUT, it should have never been done this way!  The Pro-Life Movement (national organizations) decades ago turned their backs on their own founding main key strategy: Establishing Personhood for Unborn Children. They firmly knew that establishing Personhood was the only way to end legalized abortion in the U.S. once and for all. AND IT STILL IS.  Yet for 50 years they have failed to fully and properly implement it. In fact, about 30 years ago they mostly abandoned Personhood all together. True. Very disappointing. BUT can Personhood still be established in this new environment? Yes! It will be more difficult, but it will not be impossible, AND this battle ground will remain primarily in the federal court system. In the quote below, even the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court understood the overwhelming weight and power of establishing Personhood for the unborn.

THIS CURRENT CASE 

Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. It appears the State of Mississippi's case will win (allow the 2018 law to be enforced). This federal case challenged the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

THE CONCLUSION FROM THE COURT...

Quote from Page 67:

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." ... "It is so ordered."

Arrogated means to unduly take or claim without a right or authority; to appropriate.

NOW, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN?

Many more court cases are coming...  BUT, let's start with some simple things...

• "return that authority to the people and their elected representatives"
  This means returning the decision making on abortion to the state legislatures and possibly Congress also.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE/RANGE OF THIS DECISION?  

• • Legislative bodies (state and possibly federal) now has the full authority to freely "regulate or prohibit abortion."
    NOW THE REAL QUESTION:  Do state legislatures and possibly Congress also now have the full authority to totally legalized abortion too?  It appears that MAY be the case.  BUT, this issue will bring up a whole new era of federal court cases and constitutional challenges in order to fully answer that question.  

  • Does this end legalized abortion in the United States and Territories?  No.
    It passes the responsibility (or could be considered: restores the responsibility) back to state legislatures and possibly Congress also (i.e. our elected representatives) to decide. The Draft Opinion does not protect the life of unborn children against murder.

NOW, A BRAND NEW MASSIVE LEGAL SWAMP OF CONFUSION IS BEGINNING.

THE MAIN PROBLEM REMAINS: 
PERSONHOOD IS STILL NOT ESTABLISHED
An Unborn Child IS STILL NOT recognized as a person, legally in the U.S.

If an unborn child is considered a person, legally and recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as such, then that definition will be established federally throughout the entire United States and territories.  Existing murder laws in all states (and territories) would automatically apply to unborn children too, thus, the killing of an unborn child would be considered murder (except when protecting the life of the mother).

IN THIS SUPREME COURT CASE, did you notice that both the State of Mississippi and the the Jackson (MS) abortion clinic were both represented, heard, and parties in this case... but who was representing unborn children?  No one.  Unborn children were not represented. Unborn children's demand for a right to life was never heard. Unborn children had no voice in this case because they were not considered a person, legally.  Establishing Personhood would restore the voice  of unborn children and allow their demand for a right to life be fairly and equally represented in the courts.

IF unborn children were recognized as parties in this case, then their right to life would always win over others' rights - the state's, the abortion clinic's, and the woman's. BUT THIS CASE WAS NOT ABOUT UNBORN CHILDREN... IT WAS ABOUT the State of Mississippi's right to ban abortions after 15 weeks.  This makes the 2018 Mississippi law, this case, and the twisted pro-life strategy that created it a complete pro-life failure. 

IS THIS A WIN? Absolutely, Not! 

It's a major distraction from Personhood. It's the beginning of a completely new era and whole another new level of a legal swamp of legislation and court cases on abortion for decades to come.  Key pro-life national organizations will continue to suck American pro-lifers valuable time and money away from Personhood to their campaigns which have not and cannot end legalized abortion in the U.S.  I predict the status quo of the past 50 years will continue, get worse, but remain the basically same as before: some wins, some losses, and legalized abortion not ending it in the entire U.S.  Unborn children on the whole will continue to be murdered and the United States will not escape this curse in a clear, healthy, and definitive way. Instead of having one battle ground (the federal courts), it now expands into 50 state battle grounds and it leaves the U.S. - increasingly divided, wasting time and money, all the while unborn children continue to be murdered 'in some states.'  Can the United States continue divided, half slave, half free?  It did not.  You get the point.

IS IT THE U.S. SUPREME COURTS FAULT? No.

The Supreme Court can only rule on the case before them (the Mississippi Law).  Personhood was not a topic or issue in this law or case, so therefore it could not be address or ruled upon by the Court. That is why I previously said, Roe may be overturn, but it was not done in the correct way - with a focus, potential, result on ending legalized abortion in the entire United States. Then, who's fault is it?  Ah... now you might be asking the right question.  

Because the Mississippi Law was designed by national pro-life organizations, their strategy was never designed to force 'Personhood' to be decided by the Supreme Court.  This case and the Mississippi law was about the State of Mississippi's right to ban most abortion. It was about Mississippi's right, not the unborn child's rights.  It was about state power, not the right to life. The national 'pro-life' organizations just helped the states become more powerful, not to end legalized abortion once and for all. And the one opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade was spent on overcoming a legal technicality and increasing state power - not upon establishing the right to life of the unborn. What a waste! It takes a really screwed-up pro-life strategy: 

"Hey, we don't need to totally end legalized abortion once and for all definitively by having one main battle in the federal courts, based upon the original pro-life strategy of Personhood we began the entire pro-life movement upon.... nah! No way! Let's make 50+ battles in the states and extend the war on the unborn for decades more!" 

This pro-life 'strategy' called 'Incrementalism' and produces only incomplete, partial actions (like the Mississippi Law) and the result from this U.S. Supreme Court decision is the planned 'end game' that comes directly from the main playbook of all the main national pro-life organizations. Decades ago, they abandoned the Original Pro-Life Strategy: Personhood, that they created and founded the pro-life movement upon.  Establishing Personhood of Unborn Children would, in one clear action, wipe out all legalized abortion in the U.S. and territories.  So, now the devastation of millions dead continues along, 50 years later after Roe, and possibly decades more into the future if we don't do something about establishing Personhood now.  Most legislatures are heavily lobbied by these national pro-life organizations, SO friendly pro-life legislators have been convinced to do what they recommend.  Why? They successfully marketed themselves as 'the experts' on life issues, yet they were the ones in charge for the past 50 years who may have been successful in ending Roe, but not legalized abortion in the U.S. once and for all. Wow!  What a disaster!  On Page 64 of the leaked opinion, it states: "Indeed, in this case, 26 States expressly ask us to overrule Roe and Casey and to return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives."  Too many have drunk the poisoned cool-aid of ineffective, non-principled, and non-liberty based strategies for decades and the fruit or results are self-evident in this leaked draft decision: a complete failure to end legalized abortion through the entire United States.

A NEW GENERATION OF PRO-LIFE LEADERS...  Yes!

It's happening, even though you may not see it.  We are now 50 years out from Roe v. Wade and many of the younger generations have not accepted what the national pro-life organizations have been feeding them.  They do their own research.  They learn and work within different networks that many have built themselves out of pro-life activists who feel the same way.  Those who have been more pure in their ways, have analyzed the work of the national pro-life leaders and organizations and found them corrupt, inept, and un-principled which has cause their actions to be fruitless for 50 years.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Pray. Educate yourself on Personhood. Decide to never support a national pro-life organization again. If this is a true passion and you sincerely care about ending legalized abortion, then you must take action that really makes a difference.  That means you must stop being led and start learning enough to do what is truly right, instead following those who have been directly responsible for allowing 50 years of legalized abortion to continue - and waste time - which means more babies murdered.

NOTABLE EXCERPTS FROM THE LEAKED DRAFT DECISION...

Page 2 and 3

"At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State? As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the (Roe v Wade) decision represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222, and it sparked a national controversy that has embittered our political culture for a half-century."

Page 3

"And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Page 24

"The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. The Court in Roe could have said of abortion exactly what Glucksberg said of assisted suicide: “Attitudes toward [abortion] have changed since Bracton, but our laws have consistently condemned, and continue to prohibit, [that practice].” 

Page 29

The comment here is in reference to Roe and Casey's 'abortion right' being founded upon the 14th Amendment.

"Recall that at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, over three quarters of the States had adopted statutes criminalizing abortion (usually at all stages of pregnancy), and that from the early 20th century until the day Roe was handed down, every single State had such a law on its books." ...

"There is ample evidence that the passage of these laws was instead spurred by a sincere belief that abortion kills a human being. Many judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries made that point."

Page 40

"Together, Roe and Casey represent an error that cannot be allowed to stand."

Page 65

"We therefore hold that the (U.S.) Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives." ...

... "As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the (U.S.) Constitution's text or in our Nation's history. It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged ‘under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.”

Page 67

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives." ... "It is so ordered."

Arrogated means to unduly take or claim without a right or authority; appropriate.