Praise God Who Knew Us Before the Foundations of the World Were Established

 Mario Diaz has an article at the American Thinker entitled Justice Restored -- Roe Overturned that rightly praises God, but also notes that this return of justice is because of logical legal reasoning. It is, in other words, the opposite of judicial activism.

“The critical question is whether the Constitution, properly understood, confers a right to obtain an abortion,” the Court wrote. First, the Court acknowledges the obvious, “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion,” and turns at once to the many theories that have been offered throughout the years to manipulate the constitutional text and read a right to abortion into the Constitution. “Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments,” the Court explains. Casey shifted that and “grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” Still, others tried the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is refreshing to see the Court refuse to play the usual pro-abortion games in law and instead conclude, “regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures.”

...snip...

Justice Alito summarizes the opinion honestly, writing: “Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

We praise God for such clarity and boldness from the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, much work lies ahead for the pro-life movement to care for mothers and their unborn children. But we are up to the task, and we celebrate today’s significant step toward recognizing the intrinsic value of every human life.

In an article at The Federalist John Daniel Davidson asks Why Democrats Oppose Emancipation for the Unborn?, and aswers this question here:

Those quotes are broadly representative. Southern Democrats believed the denial of all rights to black people — and indeed the denial of their personhood — was integral to what they understood to be their constitutionally protected rights, without which they would cease to be citizens with equal rights as their northern counterparts.

The exact same thing can be said of today’s pro-abortion Democrats. They believe that the denial of all rights to the unborn is integral to what they understand to be women’s constitutionally protected rights, without which they will cease to be citizens with equal rights as their male counterparts. If women are not allowed to kill their unborn babies, they will be stripped of their full humanity, just as stripping slavery from southern whites meant, to them, stripping full humanity from white people.

If Davidson's analysis is true, what a pinched view of the Constitution these people have. But the truth is that in overturning Roe, the Supreme Court is recognizing that there are things that are not the Federal Government's business. We need more such decisions. The idea of federalism is that each state makes its own rules, within the bounds of a federal constitution. The idea of one size fits all laws at the federal level, outside those things delegated to that government, is the opposite of federalism. 

Even more important though, from a moral point of view, the killing of our children is something of which our God, the creator of each of us, vigorously disapproves. God knew each of us before the foundations of the world were established. Think about that. It sends goose bumps up my spine each time I think of that.  One thinks he must cry each time one of these little gifts is killed by its own mother.