Should Conservatives be Worried about Judge Neil Gorsuch’s Views on Abortion?

Editorial credit: B Christopher / Shutterstock.com

Judge Neil Gorsuch raised a few conservative eyebrows during Wednesday’s hearing in regards to abortion. 

As reported by FoxNews:

Durbin pointed out that Gorsuch wrote in his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia”: “The intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

Durbin asked Gorsuch to explain how he could square that statement with the legal right to an abortion.

“As the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th Amendment and the book explains that,” Gorsuch answered.

“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.

“I accept the law of the land, senator, yes,” Gorsuch replied.

During day two of the hearing on Tuesday, Gorsuch said that he would have “walked out the door” if Trump has asked him to repeal Roe.

“That’s not what judges do,” he said.

Some liberals are now finding a reason to like Gorsuch.  Likewise, some conservatives are seeing a warning sign.

However, is it really a “huge, enormous, massive, red flag?”

According to Gorsuch’s explanation, Roe v Wade ruled the fetus is “not a person for the purposes of the 14th Amendment.”

The 14th Amendment specifically granted citizenship rights to blacks in a direct response to the 1857 Dred Scott Decision, which ruled no black ever was, or ever could be, a citizen.  Not only did it prevent slaves from becoming free citizens, it took citizenship away from free blacks who already had it.

After winning the Civil War, Republicans knew this complete injustice must be reversed.  However, they realized Democrats could eventually overturn any law they passed.  They needed a permanent solution.  As a result, Republicans wrote and passed the 14th Amendment without one, single Democrat vote.  Which, by the way, Democrats actually did try to repeal once they regained power at the turn of the century.

Section 1 of the amendment begins: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States”.  So, in essence, one can argue it does not apply to fetuses as they are not born yet.  However, just as this amendment corrected Dred Scott, we can correct Roe v Wade.

Gorsuch realizes it is not his job to enter the Supreme Court with the agenda of overturning legislation, which is what Durbin and the Democrats want to desperately characterize him as wanting to do.  Conservatives fight liberal justices who enforce their own ideology over the law.  Why are we changing now just because it’s about abortion?

With justices like John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy siding with the Democrats, conservatives are wasting their time hoping the SCOTUS will overturn Roe v Wade.  The solution is nullifying Roe v Wade the same way Republicans voided Dred Scott, with a binding, permanent amendment.

The 14th Amendment proves that SCOTUS rulings are not the last say in any matter.  It is exactly why the Founding Fathers designed three separate, but equal, branches, each with the power to overrule the others.  Congress has the ability to negate SCOTUS if they so choose.

While pro-lifers want Roe v Wade rescinded, we should never wish to have a new justice take the bench anticipating legislating from it.  Gorsuch’s answer is actually a good, constitutional one.  As a judge, it’s not up to Gorsuch to change the definition of the fetus.  But Congress can.

More and more scientific evidence is proving what most already know.  The fetus is a living, developing human being from conception.

Opinions in America are already shifting back to the pro-life viewpoint.  A 2015 poll reported that 52% of respondents believe life begins at conception, while a whopping 66% believe unborn babies are humans.

The Dred Scott Decision dehumanized blacks.  The 14th Amendment corrected that ruling by clarifying their God-given rights.  In the same manner, Roe v Wade dehumanized fetuses.  Another decision that can be clarified and corrected.

We need to stop focusing on repealing the 1973 ruling and rectify the problem, permanently, once and for all.

But that’s just my 2 cents.

Pamela Adams

Pamela J. Adams maintains TheFactsPaper.com which includes her blog Liberating Letters. She is a stay-at-home mom who began researching history, science, religion, and current events to prepare for home schooling. She started Liberating Letters as short lessons for her daughter and publishes them for everyone’s benefit. Pamela has a Degree in Mathematics and was in the workforce for 20 years as a teacher, Marketing Director, Manager and Administrative Assistant. She has been researching her personal family history for over 24 years, publishing 3 books on her family’s genealogy. Follow her @PJA1791 & www.TheFactsPaper.com. You can find her books Here.

Please leave your comments below