Author- Maria Santana
Not too long ago I had written about Roe v. Wade here on www.libertychant.com. Specifically, how the ruling was fabricated to eventually lead to the legalization of abortion in the United States. The 1973 landmark Supreme Court ruling was a 7-2 decision. It was on the basis of the right to privacy under Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. One of the two Supreme Court justices to dissent this decision was Byron White.
John F. Kennedy was influential in this Supreme Court ruling – well sort of. Byron White, a pro-life advocate, was appointed by Kennedy to the Supreme Court in 1962. Kennedy considered abortion to be a form of population control and that it was ‘repugnant’ in comparison to Japan at the time. He said very little about abortion because it had not been considered a significant topic in politocs dueing the 1960s. Justice White along with Justice William Rehnquist wrote a dissenting opinion on the decision. Here is an excerpt:
‘With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.’
Planned Parenthood did exist during the presidency of Kennedy and did not publicly advocate for abortion. Nonetheless it did not stop them from producing and distributing brochures explained that birth control and abortion were not the same thing. Interestingly enough Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist.
Even the name of the organization Planned Parenthood is oxymoronic. I say this because the name seems as though that parenthood should not exist unless it is planned. Many lives before and after today will exist unplanned. With that being said, an unplanned or unexpected life is less worthy than a planned one? Just because a life is unplanned does not make the being insignificant or not having a purpose.
In 2009, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was quoted as saying this for the New York Times about abortion and population control. “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”