Not only does the 14th Amendment NOT recognize any born person's right TO abortion,
But the 14th Amendment actually protects any unborn persons FROM abortion.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/
Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
i copy-pasted all 5 sections above, for maximum transparency and context.
the sections on insurrection, rebellion, etc will become more relevant as time goes on, as related to the Jan 6 hearings, and the deep state's attempts to prevent PDJT from running for office again. so, everyone should bone-up on the entire body of the 14th Amendment, because its all relevant to tomorrow's news.
however for the purpose of this post about abortion, i will only be citing section 1.
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Depending on which WORDS we choose to emphasize, we can CHANGE the 14th amendment from being the foundation of the PRO-abortion movement,
and turn it into the foundation of the ANTI-abortion movement!
"ALL PERSONS BORN ... are CITIZENS of the USA, and the State"
So let's say we interpret this to mean that once ANY PERSON is BORN in USA,
they automatically become a CITIZEN,
BUT, what is a "CITIZEN" BEFORE they are BORN?
A PERSON!
No State shall ... "CITIZENS"
So here we have language that clearly says CITIZENS, as opposed to PERSONS,
a differentiation that was both deliberate, and relevant.
Nor shall any STATE deprive ANY PERSON of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
We could use this part, but only against "The State",
So make the argument that if THE STATE is financing, or subsidizing ABORTIONS,
Or even licensing and/or regulating abortion providers,
then the State is complicit in depriving AN UNBORN PERSON of their LIFE,
without due process of law.
Nor "DENY" to ANY PERSON within its jurisdiction, the EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS.
This last sentence here, is the one that really makes the case!
its beautifully written, almost as if by divine inspiration,
and its just been sitting there all along, waiting for someone to actually READ IT,
and interpret it completely differently...
not sure how SCOTUS in 1973 made 14th amendment into a "right" to abortion...
even the phrase "EQUAL PROTECTION" is kind of weird, to our servile way of thinking.
we don't usually think of "THE LAW" as being there to PROTECT anyone, but rather to OPPRESS everyone.
and so, much like the rest of the US constitution, it just re-emphasizes the important concept about the unique way in which the US constitution limits the government, NOT the people.
so under what circumstance could "THE LAW"... "PROTECT"... a "PERSON"?
is it "against THE LAW" to murder ANY BORN PERSON?
"EQUAL PROTECTION" must mean that it would also be
"against the law" to murder ANY UN-BORN PERSON!
So any State that makes murdering any person illegal,
must also make aborting any person illegal.
The entire Roe V Wade case was manufactured.
Ms Roe, on her deathbed, admitted to being a paid actor, and lying about being raped.
https://rumble.com/v14lhp5-roe-v-wade-a-manufactured-lie.html
The satanists who run this clown world, concocted the entire roe v wade case,
for the sole purpose of DENYING the PROTECTION of THE LAW,
and allowing for, and facilitating for, and being complicit in,
the MASS-MURDER of TEN'S OF MILLIONS of UNBORN PERSONS.
They took OUR US CONSTITUTION, and twisted it around into something VERY EVIL,
and COMPLETELY contrary to both the letter of the law, and to the spirit of the law.
This cannot stand.
If the SCOTUS in 2022 ruled against using the 14th amendment to quazi-legalize the abortion of any person in USA,
then the SCOTUS in 2022 must also rule that the 14th amendment does not allow any state to deny the equal protections of the law, in regard to the abortion of any unborn person.
if it is a CRIME for any COMMON CRIMINAL to HARM or KILL any PREGNANT WOMAN,
and it is also a CRIME for any COMMON CRIMINAL to HARM or KILL any PREGNANT WOMAN'S UN-BORN CHILD-PERSON,
then SURELY it must ALSO be a CRIME for ANY DOCTOR to willfully HARM or KILL any pregnant woman's un-born child-person.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a PERSON acting under color of ANY law to willfully deprive a PERSON of a right or privilege PROTECTED by the Constitution or LAWS of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, CARE PROVIDERS in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any PERSON in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if BODILY INJURY results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if DEATH results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an ATTEMPT TO KILL, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to DEATH.
Abortion is NOT HEALTH CARE.
Abortion is A HATE CRIME.
They would say the 14th doesn't apply because the baby is not yet born.
Did you even read the above? The whole point is the constitution seems to clearly state that the unborn are Persons
… as opposed to citizens… which are the born persons
if a person murdered a woman who was 8 months pregnant,
would that person be charged with 2 murders?
1 each for mother and child?
That's usually the case. The law changes to suit their needs at the time.
if one can drop an anchor, and that anchor is a baby in your stomach, one would assume that baby has a right. if that said baby has a right, one would assume if it were to be removed from the picture, there would be some sort of liability.
otherwise, no more anchor babies, cps, pregnant women being a protected class and you can have your abortions
Your parents have to be under US jurisdiction to be born a citizen. Non-citizen children are under the jurisdiction of their parent’s country. Being conceived by citizens grants you right to life and citizenship.
The whole “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Indicates an exclusionary clause that libs and rinos conveniently ignore.
Thus the magic dirt clause is really just them being willfully ignorant.
Lol magic dirt clause. Kek.
The Argument revolves around the definition of Person, otherwise know as personhood. Have not seem much debate about personhood in years so some of you may have not even heard of it.
If that’s the case viability is a moot argument.
It always has been, its a left argument for pre personhood of a fetus.
Is an old person who cant take care of themself in any manor, a viable human, Post Personhood ?
Exactly!
lets make this argument go viral. make and share memes. have everyone talking about it at the office water cooler.
the SCOTUS is poised to hear this kind of argument, like never before, and maybe never again. we just gotta get a case, to try out, and appeal it all the way to SCOTUS.
gotta be careful in which circuit courts you test it in. if you "win" at a lower court, the SCOTUS may not hear your case, and let the lower court ruling stand, but only for part of the USA.
if you "lose", then they SCOTUS might hear your case, and then make a ruling that is for ALL of the USA
part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJUIz9o0EzM
part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmYUK-SO9lo
The 14th amendment makes the statement that anyone born within the borders of the country are members of the Governmental Corporation called the United States Government
We belong to the United States Government Corporation.
A "corporation" is a legal entity (as opposed to a Natural Person). The United States Governmental Corporation was created in 1787 through the Constitution (an article of Incorporation). There may be more fuckery there through the Act of 1871 and the creation of the Municipal Corporation of the District of Columbia, but I'm not sure about that, and it is irrelevant to this post.
The 14th amendment makes the statement that we belong to the United States Government Corporation simply by being born within its borders (and other lesser reasons).
This says no State can make a law that abridges the privileges or immunities of the people that belong to the United States Government Corporation. It further supports that no State can infringe on our inalienable Rights of Life, Liberty or Property, "without due process of law" (which is of questionable authority, since it requires compliance by Natural Law, but I'm not going there).
This talks about what States can't do. It says nothing about what the United States Government Corporation can or can't do.
This sets us up the Bomb.
The Bomb in this case being The Fed. We are in debt, and that shall not be questioned. Our debts are indentures. We are in bondage to The Fed. This states that all citizens are in bondage and responsible for the debt of the United States Government Corporation. While the Fed didn't exist at the time this amendment was written, we were massively indebted to the banks (specifically the Rothschilds) from the war (Civil War) that had just happened. Prior to that event, we were almost debt free. After that event, we never even came close to getting out of bondage. When The Fed came around, we lost any chance of ever escaping that bondage, because money = debt + interest. Which means that there isn't enough money in the world to pay off the debt. Our bondage is perpetual and can't be questioned.
The 14th amendment was fuckery galore. It is a fraudulent article, and must be expunged (just like all of the amendments).
14A also talks about being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States Government Corporation, which is an incredibly important topic, but not one I will go into here.
Wrong. Jurisdiction here does not mean within our borders. It means someone recognized under our laws. Slaves and Citizens. This term was used to grant citizenship to slaves who were governed by Us law but denied citizenship. Today it means citizens by an originalist interpretation. Not someone within our borders. That is why citizens are governed by US laws the world over when they are not in our borders.
Which part is "wrong?" I said explicitly that a citizen was someone born within the borders and other lesser reasons. Those other lesser reasons are exactly as you stated, "someone recognized under our laws." Nothing I said was "corrected" by you.
I am well aware that it did this. It also did all the things I said. It turned people who were legally slaves into citizens. It ALSO turned all citizens into slaves to the banks. It took people who were slaves, and turned them into a different kind of slave (or rather, a slave to a different master), along with all the other citizens, no matter where they are born.
When stating "wrong," please try to understand what someone is saying. I appreciate you attempting to rebut me, but please don't start with "wrong," if you don't even understand what a person is saying (or really ever. If I am wrong, your rebuttal will show it, in this case it didn't and the word "wrong" only ruffles feathers). I agree with what you said (for the most part), but it didn't in any way address what I was saying, nor is it in conflict with it.
Your "border" and "jurisdiction" protests are not in any way in conflict with anything I said. If you think they are, please re-read it. I suggest you completely missed the point.
By the originalist intent you are not a citizen because you are born within the borders. You are born a citizen because your parents are.
This STILL has not one thing to do with what I said. Please try to understand what I am saying. I don't disagree with your statement at all. Do you get it? You are completely missing my point.
Your point is irrelevant and you blab too much.
It's irrelevant to you, that's fine. I suggest if you want to rebut someone however, you at least make an attempt to understand what they are saying, otherwise you just look foolish.
It’s only relevant to you. You literally have been talking past me and yourself into your own circle jerk this whole time. Why would I waste my time rebutting someone who responds to himself ? There’s nothing to rebutt. It means what it meant. You talk just to hear yourself talk. You can talk a lot and say nothing.
I think the problem you are having, what I was "wrong" about, is my first sentence:
Let me fix it so you can move forward and get to the point:
Is that better? The point of clarification is irrelevant to what I was saying. It was implicit within my original statement, since it was within the quote directly above the sentence. That I didn't include the addendum was simply to save time.
I even said at the end that the "jurisdiction" part was important, but that I wasn't going to get into it at that time. It goes beyond what you are saying, which I agree with.
I didn’t even read that. Holy spergout.
The caveat that blows this article out of the water is the word “born”. Leftists would state that abortions are pre-birth; this exempt
In would instead argue with the 10th Amendment which states that all rights not given to the Federal Govt by the Constitution are given to the State and the People. There is no Constitutional Right to Abortion; it was fabricated out of whole cloth
All the SCOTUS did was clean up sloppy law; and make abortion a State Rights issue; as it always should have been
Pretty sure you are right Hodar. It clearly says "born" and follows it up with "or naturalized". You can't be naturalized unless you are born.
I don't like it, but that is very clear, and "born" is the operative word. Good try though - no way that gets anywhere.
The "person" angle is interesting but I don't believe the court would define a person as someone that hasn't been born yet. That would likely also touch the "subject to the jurisdiction" piece. How can an unborn baby be subject to the jurisdiction of anything?
Nice idea OP, but I don't see any way SCOTUS would even take a case based on this.
Could you use the verbage in the constitution saying how 3/5 of a "person" could be used in representation and taxation? Obviously this was repealed, but the language exists in defining a "person".
So if a pregnancy term is 9 months (36 weeks), and 3/5 of that time is 21.6 weeks (round up to 22 weeks)....would it be fair to say that after 22 weeks representative rights would exist?
Do it!
You are just making a leap here. There is nothing there to indicate that the unborn are considered people without your leap. They are, but I'm not seeing the textual connection.
I like this and appreciate all the work that went into it anon. I agree, a baby in its mother's womb is a person who hasn't been born yet. Yet you still have not actually defined why the unborn are persons, but merely asserted that they must be such; because, not having been born, they aren't yet citizens.
I'm not even sure there is an adequately sensible (i.e., other than legalese) definition of what constitutes a person. Everyone just sort of knows it by instinct.
I am not a lawyer or a biologist.
Getting pretty fucking sickof being given the choice between infanticide and no abortions whatsoever.
Exactly NOT HEATHCARE AND NOT BIRTHCONTROL NOT A REPRODUCTIVE RIGHT! Their arguments for are idiotic
Under Section 3, it sounds like anyone participating in insurrection, i.e. overthrow of a duly elected President, aiding in the Jan. 6 insurrection (whether a current member of Congress or future candidate) can hold government office (state, Congress/federal) unless 2/3 of a Congress changes the law. Under section 4 it sounds like pensions also need not be paid if participating in insurrection. All members of a Congress who have put a verbal stamp of approval on violence by the rioters/protesters and encouraging such fall under the categories in section 3&4.
The problem is our form of government and the constitution and bill of rights were created for people of moral standing (Jefferson or somebody even said this). The people we are fighting against have no morals, so none of this makes sense to them.
This post needs viral attention.
copy-paste the following text:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15IXtz7WiL/
excellent 14th amendment argument against abortion!
please pass it on!
and send it to 10 people in your text message list.
preferably on west coast, its late on east coast.
text east coast in the morning, so its the first thing that triggers them in the morning
What is it when states defy the country? ( CA in particular )
I would argue that being conceived by people already under US jurisdiction is naturalization before you are born.
But anchor babies do not work. You are not under US jurisdiction if you were not born here and your parents are not citizens.
And that you are a person at conception who cannot be denied life, liberty etc etc with equal and full protection under the law, who automatically becomes a citizen at birth.
Put it out there, and let the pro-abortion people try to refute it
there are two steps to any revolution.
educate yourself
educate others
the US Constitution is a subject that anyone who is into US politics, absolutely loves to talk about, because they know it is time well spent, that its the highest law of the land, that its relatively easy to read and understand, and you don't have to cross-reference ump-teen other sections of the law...
and its their civic duty,
the constitution is something that can actually bring the people back together, because all sides tend to love the constitution.
so whether someone agrees with your on your 14th amendment argument, or not, is almost irrelevant,
as long as they carefully read the text of the 14th amendment, and sincerely consider your argument.
people will have to think about your argument, in order to try to make a coherent rebuttal.
people love to have the last word, and they will not stand for this side of the argument, to be the last word.
they will feel compelled to engage in the debate, which only makes them think about it even more deeply,
and also draw more people into the debate.