Controversial Corruption History Legislation Opinion Political Weaponization

Ohio Joins 23 Other States in Request of the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

In 1970, Norma McCorvey [Jane Roe] filed a lawsuit against Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, for the American right to legally terminate pregnancy. 1973, the Supreme Court reached a decision which state laws banning abortion were ruled unconstitutional. This controversial and monumental case became historically known as Roe vs Wade.


At the time, Gerald Ford was running for President against Jimmy Carter. Ford, selected Bob Dole as his running mate [VP]. Bob Dole attempted to gain more popularity and support, by politically weaponizing the Pro-Life stance. Alongside Senator Jesse Helms, they rallied up support from Christians, Abortion Activists, and eventually supporters of then Presidential Candidate Ronald Reagan. Bob Dole’s plan did not work, and he eventually lost the election to 39th U.S. President Jimmy Carter. By 1980, the already enacted “Pro-life stance” enabled Ronald Reagan to win the election, becoming the 40th president of the Uniter States. Since then, the Republican Party’s political position has been synonymous with Pro-Life. This position, is also another reason many people feel Conservative views are fused with Christianity. Today, the topic of abortion, is sure to stir up emotion and discussion between those with opposing views.


Abortion is not written into the constitution. Today, many modern Conservatives are Pro-Choice, (to a certain extent) in the case of rape, or serious birth defects. Additionally, if the government bans abortion, the black market abortion clinic would be open for business the next day. (Before Roe vs Wade, illegal abortions resulted in 1 out of 6 mother’s deaths.) Another point against abortion is that it limits the Republican Party. This is not something that was intended to be part of the original GOP in 1854. Many Conservatives who don’t have a hard stance on abortions, have moved to the Libertarian Party due to this stigma. Freedom requires you to be uncomfortable with some people’s decisions. What starts with abortions-laws, quickly moves to gun-laws, and the rights of free speech.


Many Republicans see the anti-abortion stance as a stance against murder. Pro-Life Republicans refuse to exist in a society where “murder” is protected and defended by the government. They believe they are speaking for those who cannot defend themselves. Another issue Conservatives have, is that people abuse abortion. Abortion should not be a form of birth control. Being promiscuous and consistently getting pregnant should not be cause for abortion. This is the reason Pro-Life support banning abortion with law. Basic Laws are created simply because not everyone has “common sense”, nor do they have the same morals. Normal people don’t steal, but that doesn’t mean it should be legal.

Republicans vs Democrats

We can thank Bob Dole for politically weaponizing abortion, as well as making it a partisan issue. Abortion laws continue to contribute to a great divide between Republicans and Democrats. Believe it or not, both sides think they are on the Pro-Human side. Republicans are standing up and protecting the unborn. Democrats are protecting the human rights of the Mothers. Regardless of your viewpoint, legislation should not detract from your American right to adhere to it. If you don’t like abortion, or don’t believe it should exist, you should not be forced to defend abortion. However, government abortion regulation doesn’t stop black market abortion, it only controls it.

Modern Law

Now, 23 other states want to overturn the decision and be allowed to outlaw being able to legally have an abortion within their state. They have released a briefing for the states of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming as amici curiae [not involved in a case but assists the court with information] in support of the petitioners.

The briefing reads: [paraphrased]


“This Court has propounded a constitutional law of abortion for half a century, and no one can describe it with any certainty. Because the purported right to abortion lacks any textual or historical foundation, it is de- fined only by the Court’s constantly changing opinions.”

“The continually shifting tests and rules make this area of law unworkable, leaving courts confused and States aiming at a constantly moving target when defending their laws. The Court should feel no obligation to continue to pre- serve this anti-constitutional ‘right.'”

“Roe and Casey created and preserved a nonexistent constitutional right.

“Roe’s failing is straightforward: The Constitution does not include a right to abortion, and there is no history or tradition of protecting such a right.”

The Constitution does not include a right to elective abortion.

“Abortion is a “right” in search of a constitutional home. It is found nowhere in the text of the Constitution, and the majority in Roe did not claim otherwise.”

“Simply reading the relevant amendments reveals that none of them explicitly includes anything resem- bling the right to abortion.”

There is no right to elective abortion in the Nation’s history and tradition.

“The case against abortion as a constitutional right is not difficult to make. It is simply not present in the Constitution or protected throughout the Nation’s history. Those who seek to justify the continued preservation of the right have the greater hurdle—and one that must ul- timately prove insurmountable.”

The Court continues to change the constitutional test.

“Because the right to abortion arises from only this Court’s say-so, States and courts are left with only this Court’s opinions for guidance. Yet the Court keeps changing the constitutional test for abortion regulations to say whatever a majority (or plurality) of the Court de- cides at that time. Stare decisis is supposed to “keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.” 1 W. Blackstone, Com- mentaries on the Laws of England 69 (1765). It should have no application when the Court repeatedly wavers by creating various new constitutional tests to govern a nonexistent constitutional right.”

Roe created the trimester test.

“After deciding to recognize a right to abortion, the majority in Roe also created a rigid trimester test to de- termine whether abortion regulations were constitutional.”

Casey rejected the trimester test in favor of the undue-burden test.

“Less than twenty years later, the Court abandoned the trimester test. Casey, 505 U.S. at 873 (plurality op.)”

“And to top it off, the Court’s most recent abortion decisions had not resulted in majority opinions, leaving lower courts struggling to ap- ply Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), to figure out what the constitutional test was.”

The Court’s abortion precedent is unreliable and unworkable.

“In addition to the flaws in Roe and Casey’s constitu- tional holdings, the unsettled nature of the Court’s abor- tion precedent makes Roe and Casey ripe for overruling. States and courts cannot rely on the Court’s decisions from one precedent to the next, making the entire sys- tem unworkable and resolvable only by the Court.”

The Court Frequently Alters Other Doctrines in Abortion Cases.

“In addition to facing uncertainty about what constitutional test the Court will use, States litigating abortion cases also have no assurance that the Court will evenly apply traditional legal rules.”

“These disorienting developments in the case law have sown confusion and undermined confidence that the Court will follow its own precedents in the abortion con- text. Stare decisis has not kept the Court from uprooting settled doctrines as needed to strike down democrati- cally enacted abortion laws. And stare decisis should not prevent the Court from reexamining the roots of its in- consistent and unpredictable abortion jurisprudence.”

The Court has created multiple abortion- specific rules and exceptions.

“'[T]he abortion right recognized in this Court’s deci- sions’ has been ‘used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way.’ June Med., 140 S. Ct. at 2153 (Alito, J., dissenting). Whether it be the standard for facial challenges, severability, res judicata, standing, or even the First Amendment, the Court’s abortion prec- edents have created and applied abortion-specific rules and exceptions.”

The Court’s abortion exceptionalism has muddled its First Amendment jurisprudence.

“Those who choose to exercise their First Amendment rights to speak out against abortion have also fallen vic- tim to the Court’s “ad hoc nullification machine” that “push[es] aside whatever doctrines of constitutional law stand in the way of that highly favored practice.”

The Court has declined to give discretion to legislatures crafting abortion laws amid medical uncertainty.

“The ability of legislatures to legislate on matters of medical or scientific uncertainty also waxes and wanes depending on whether the legislation concerns abortion.”

The Court’s abortion-specific jurisprudence should be corrected by overruling Roe and Casey.

“Other abortion-specific rules abound. Justice Thomas recently noted that, in the context of criminal conduct, the Court treats minors as “children” who are less culpa- ble, but in the context of abortion, the Court treats minors as mature young women.”

“The creation of numerous abortion-specific rules will only hurt the Court’s integrity in the long run.”

It Is Time To Revisit and Overturn Roe and Casey.

“The States may, consistent with this Court’s decisions, regulate the availability of abortion before viabil- ity to prevent pain in utero. But if they cannot, it is this Court’s decisions, and not the States’ laws, which must yield. Any precedent that can be interpreted to mean that it is irrelevant whether an unborn child feels pain during dismemberment has no place in a just society.”

“Time has not lessened the belief that unborn life deserves protection. Rather, an increasing number of States are enacting laws that seek to protect unborn life earlier and earlier in gestation. People of good conscience will always disagree on this issue.”

“In Casey, the Court spoke of allowing a woman to shape her “destiny” and to “define [her] own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mys- tery of human life.” Id. at 851-52. These enlightened sen- timents have produced a grim reality. This Court’s opin- ions have resulted in lower-court decisions holding that a woman has a constitutional right to (1) have a doctor dismember her living unborn child, see W. Ala. Women’s Ctr. v. Williamson, 900 F.3d 1310, 1329 (11th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 2606 (2019); (2) reject her unborn child based on the child’s sex, gender, and abilities, see Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780, 1781 (2019) (per curiam) (denying certiorari on second question); and (3) as here, demand an abortion at any point prior to viability, even if it causes her unborn child excruciating pain, Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265, 273 (5th Cir. 2019), cert. granted in part, No. 19-1392, 2021 WL 1951792 (U.S. May 17, 2021).”

“As Justice Thomas has stated, the Court ‘cannot continue blinking the reality of what [it] has wrought.'”


“The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.”

“Respectfully submitted.”


“The Commonwealth has a paramount interest in protecting unborn life, and Kentucky regularly acts on that interest by passing laws that protect the unborn and maternal health, reaffirm the dignity of human life, and protect the integrity of the medical profession,” said Daniel Cameron, District Attorney of Kentucky.

Cameron continued, “Much like Mississippi’s 15-week law, Kentucky’s laws are often tied up for years in court challenges by abortion providers. The notion of a constitutional right to an abortion is a creation of the courts and has no basis in our Constitution. This case gives the high court the chance to correct this profound error by reconsidering Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the states as required by the Constitution.”

The Mississippi 15-week abortion ban allows exceptions in cases of a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality, and providers violating this ban face mandatory suspension or revocation of their medical license. Recently, Texas has restricted its abortion laws to 6 weeks and before. The Supreme Court’s decision could impact Ohio’s abortion restrictions which are currently on hold in federal court: a ban after a fetal heartbeat is detected and another after a fetal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

“The jurisprudence of abortion has become like the 1960s fights over pornography–no one can say exactly what’s allowed and what’s not,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said. “It’s like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography: ‘I know it when I see it.’ It’s time to end this failed experiment in judicial law-making and return the matter to the States.”


Americans need to be careful involving the state in personal issues, as this ultimately limits our freedoms, which prove difficult to ever get back. The more power we give the government, the more involved they become in every detail of our lives and our personal decision making process. The decision itself should not be partisan, but a discussion on medical ethics and human rights. Ultimately, as in the case of religion, everybody will not agree on the same perspective. The government should not have the power to control the decisions of non-violent people. This includes American’s right to ban abortions, as well as have them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: