300: The Deeper Meaning of Dobbs

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston takes a straight-forward look into what the overrule of Roe v. Wade actually means for our nation and our state. He reads from the decision and cites several other matters of court precedent, including Doe v. Bolton. Johnston explains that not a single baby is protected in the language of the Dobbs decision. Instead, the Court simply apologizes and declares they will now let the American people again regulate abortion, and do so through their elected representatives. It restores that essential principle of the Republic: government of, by and for the people.

But it does not restore all those laws it struck on Jan 22, 1973. It does not actually address the 50 years of killing or the many other harms that emanated from that day.

The Dobbs decision clearly states the Court's regret with the extremist and inappropriate Roe v. Wade misadventures of January 22, 1973. On that day the Court overturned all state laws.  The Court took upon itself the rule of legislators and superimposed its will on all the various legislative bodies. This was an unconstitutional act.  But on June 24, 2022 the Court did not go back in time. The Court did not reinstate all of those laws that were in existence. The Court was very clear in Dobbs, that it was not going to create ANY new abortion laws in either direction - that was its initial problem. Creating law is not the job of the Court.

Instead, the Dobbs decision has returned the duty of regulating abortion to the involvement of the citizens doing so through their elected representatives. This is the model of a constitutional republic, and is the premise of the American Constitution.

What that means is if a legislative body decides to restrict abortion, theCourt is promising it will never again interfere with that right. In discussing Roe, the language of Justice Alito clearly parallels the same language of dissenting Justice Byron White in 1973. The superimposing will of the Court was an exercise in 'raw additional power,' and without any basis in law or logic.  Alito is clear he would have joined the dissent in 1973.

But he is also clear. This is no longer 1973.

So what do we do now? Brian points out that the Dobbs decision is not specifically aimed at state representatives, but literally the people themselves who will regulate abortion through their elected representatives - so the principle can apply to Congress. It also can apply to local elected officials where those local officials deem it necessary to limit the involvement of the abortion industry in their respective jurisdictions.  School boards are but one example that comes to mind.

Brian raises a deeper issue. How is the pro-life movement now to win in this chess board battle of ideas and laws? He turns, of all places, to California.  Californians, in fact, do not agree with the major media and the abortion industry when it comes to "choice" as meaning, unlimited abortion throughout all nine months, government funding of its promotion and underwriting, and the secret application of abortions to minors, whether they be from California or brought in from out of state. 

The California Rasmussen poll demonstrates the vast majority of Californians -  as is the case in the rest of the nation, think that "choice” means very narrow limiting and control of abortion. 

Brian insists THIS is the opportunity that pro-lifers should avail of: invert the public's common misunderstanding and welcome their desire to limit abortions.

The respected Rasmussen poll found that only 13% of likely California voters of both parties believe abortion should be legal at any time during pregnancy up to the moment of birth.  Fourteen percent (14%) think abortion should be legal up to six months of pregnancy, while 32% say abortion should be legal up to three months of pregnancy. Nineteen percent (19%) believe abortion should only be legal during the first month of pregnancy, while 14% think all abortions should be illegal.

Yes, Brian insists THIS is the opportunity that pro-lifers should avail of: invert the public's common misunderstanding and welcome their desire to limit abortions as understanding and being opposition to “choice".  Once we welcome them as opponents of Planned Parenthood and abortion as a 'universal therapy,’ we can then focus on teaching them more. But we must get them in the door based on what they now DO believe! 

They oppose Choice abortion. That is a very, very good thing.