Army Bob: Abortion isn’t protected by Constitution

by Robert M. Traxler

According to a story in Politico, Roe v. Wade is going to be struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The story is reportedly “well sourced” leaks from the Supreme Court, which are exceptionally rare and, it is hard to believe it has leaked months before the ruling is set to be announced, unless it was for a political reason.

Ask yourself why it went to Politico; according to fact check sites, Politico is a center left publication. The Supreme Court decision is not yet set in stone, it is still in the development and negotiations are ongoing between the 36 justices and clerks to form the wording of a decision.

So why Politico and why now? Both sides of the (what do I call it? story, debate, issue?) are cocked and locked in a war, nothing less. Abortion or women’s health rights are a hot button issue; let me say from the start that the issue is not a litmus test for me. I know the issue is a for-or-against loyalty test for nearly 65% of the nation, but national defense and the Bill of Rights are the issues most central to my support and vote. The only reason this story has been leaked to a left-leaning media outlet is to pressure the justices to change the final opinion. 

Many years ago, this column suggested that the pro Roe v. Wade folks start working on a way to justify the court going extra-Constitutional in its  ruling. Calling a developing human a “non-viable tissue mass” in light of the science that has developed in the 49 years since Roe is indefensible. The science has shown a heartbeat, brain activity and other signs of life earlier than it could have in 1973.

It is generally believed that a fetus can live outside the womb at 24 weeks; however, survival is 49 to 62%. It was a matter of time before the ruling was overturned; however, the Roe folks dug in and installed overhead cover on their fighting position and failed to maneuver on the issue. The result will be a nation torn apart by the issue, if and only if the SCOTUS rules against Roe v. Wade.

“Follow the science” is a mantra of the good people who will fight for Roe, but they ignored the science and failed to develop a more supportable reason for the SCOTUS to continue supporting a clearly unconstitutional decision. Roe is an issue both sides are invested in; no Republican can get nominated if pro-choice and no Democrat will be nominated if pro-life.

Army Bob Traxler

Abortion is not banned, it has just been returned to the states. The U.S. Constitution is clear on the powers of the central government, and if you take the Constitution as written, it is clear Roe was unconstitutional.

Folks can argue the issue until the cows come home and they will, with emotional arguments on women’s rights and a patchwork of laws among the states, along with women seeking “back-alley abortions,” women being subjugated to life as breeding stock, the so-called morning after pill and contraception being banned, gay marriage being banned and many more emotional arguments.

All the arguments against overturning Roe, although heart-felt by the Pro-choice folks, do not change the fact this is a constitutional issue, and their concerns are issues better addressed in law. The state governments can pass laws as they deem fit to allow or deny abortions.

In the 49 years between Roe and the SCOTUS decision to perhaps overturn Roe, the pro-choice folks should have worked to amend the Constitution; however, it was just easier to place all the arrows in the Roe quiver. If the pro-choice folks want to make abortion/choice legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, they should do the work and amend our Constitution; it is the only way to ensure abortion remains legal in all 50 states. My opinion.


  • Even Ginsburg noted the unconstitutional tenets of the Roe vs Wade SCOTUS decision as it stood.
    And one other thought. If abortion is so very popular, what are liberals afraid of here? Look, some people are for abortion and others are not. But, the majority of people, even those that are pro choice, want some restrictions on abortions. Late term abortions are murder, in my opinion. And even our courts (think Scott Peterson) find that murdering a pregnant woman is essentially 2 murders. Read:
    “Peterson, 49, was convicted in 2004 for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn son Conner. ”

    • Mr. Moras,
      Robert, I doubled checked Associate Justice Ginsburg’s stand that Roe as written, was unconstitutional, you are correct she did say it more than once. The pro-abortion folks should have listened to her and worked to change the constitution. Interesting no one in the liberal media mentions her opinion?
      Thanks for the comment.

Leave a Reply to Robert M Traxler X