Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


Legacy of Roe v. Wade: does pregnant woman represent 1 life or 2?

  • Published in Letters

To The Daily Sun,

The Legacy of Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton

Does a pregnant woman represent one life or two?

The January 22, 1973, simultaneous sister Supreme Court rulings, Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, based on a women's right to privacy, took away the personhood of the unborn and opened the door to unrestricted abortion on demand. At the same time the court dehumanized the unborn and took away their legal right to life and liberty. Roe petitioned for the right to first trimester abortions but the court voluntarily extended that right to a vague "viability" that they were unwilling to define. This was made moot because Doe, in effect, sanctioned abortion on demand at any time for any reason up to full term. This latter case law "full term" edict has been modified in certain cases by federal and state legislative action. Almost all of those who support unrestricted abortion on demand quote Roe as their case law authority and are not aware that it is Doe, not Roe, that gave the original full term authority. Liberal groups know quite well that the courts can and do override legislative action as well as the will of the people, and the courts are their weapon of choice.

The 14th Amendment states that any person under the jurisdiction of the United States cannot be denied life and liberty without due process of law and is also entitled to equal protection under the law. To circumvent these constitutional protections, the court has dehumanized the unborn and denied their God-given rights to life and liberty. Our nation's founding document singled out these two as our most important rights and identified our Creator as their source.

Justice Blackmun wrote into the majority opinion in Roe that the right to abortion collapses if the personhood of the unborn could be established. This is why pro-abortion advocates (our president included) and such liberal groups such as the ACLU and Planned Parenthood have fought tenaciously against ANY action leading to the recognition of the personhood and right to life and liberty for the unborn.

So does a pregnant woman represent one life or two? Most women pregnant with a WANTED child would say they are carrying a living human being, and would claim the right to life for their unborn child, their baby. They would also claim the right to legal protection for their unborn from harm by others during their pregnancy. The edicts of Roe and Doe preclude this right. Most women pregnant with an UNWANTED child would claim that the contents of their womb is just tissue with no right to life. This creates a paradox because the condition of a person being wanted or unwanted otherwise has no legal bearing in jurisprudence when another human is harmed or killed. After Roe and Doe, legal protection for the unborn, wanted or unwanted, from harm or extermination was non-existent because of the Supreme Court case law denial of personhood for the unborn. Here are two examples among many:

In Wisconsin, Tracy Marciniac was expecting delivery of a son, already named Zachariah, in five days. Her estranged husband assaulted her, causing the death of a perfectly formed full term baby boy. Her husband was convicted of assault on the mother, but was not punished for the death of the child (his son). In the eyes of the law, nobody died that night in Tracy's apartment; there was no murder. Zachariah was just non-human tissue with no right to life. There was no law to protect her unborn from harm or to protect Tracy's CHOICE to carry her pregnancy to full term. Tracy's ex-husband is up for parole in 2014 from the assault conviction.

In West Virginia, Christina Alberts was pregnant with her second child and was expecting a baby girl in about two weeks. She was shot and killed during a home invasion. The unborn baby girl, Ashley Nicole, perished along with her mother. The man who shot Christy was sentenced to life in prison without parole for the murder of Christina but was not culpable for the death of Ashley Nicole. In fact, the jury was not allowed to be told that Christy was pregnant at the time of her death.

These two cases demonstrate the legacy of Roe and Doe Supreme Court case law that has dehumanized the unborn and ruled that they have no legal right to life.

Graphic pictures of Tracy with Zach in her arms at his funeral and Christina with Ashley beside her in their coffin were included with other evidence presented before Congress during the debates over the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (passed in 2004 on the fourth try). The federal statute is valid within Federal jurisdiction ONLY and the U.S. military. The punishment for harming or killing the unborn is the same as if they are living, breathing human beings. Twenty-seven states to date have enacted statutes providing full legal protection for WANTED unborn children and nine states after "viability." Fourteen states have left the door open for anyone to injure or kill unborn children and escape culpability.

There are a number of similar cases but not enough space to present them here. Just one recent example: Kidnapper Ariel Castro pled guilty to the charges of AGGRAVATED MURDER for his assaults on Michelle Knight resulting in at least two miscarriages. He accepted life in prison without parole to escape a possible death sentence. He knew the Ohio statute had already passed a challenge in the courts that attempted to strike down the precept of human life in the womb and also knew that Ohio Attorney General Timothy McGinty was determined to uphold the law.

The Federal Unborn victims of Violence Act and the related state statutes clash directly in principle with Roe and Doe. The authority for termination of the unborn on demand is CASE LAW and the legal protection of the unborn from harm is LEGISLATED LAW. There have been a number of cases in states with protective statutes involving attacks on pregnant women resulting in death to their unborn children that have been tested in the courts. The cowards that assaulted the pregnant women tried to hide behind the dehumanizing principles of Roe and Doe. They claimed that since our Supreme Court has denied personhood to the unborn they should not be held responsible for killing tissue that is not a person. In each case the courts have denied their pleas and held them culpable the same as if they had killed a living, breathing human. Examples of this will have to wait until another time.

The principles of Roe and Doe case law dictate that the unborn are not human beings, do not have the right to life, and it leaves them legally unprotected from injury or death, wanted or not. In the absence of counter legislation this means under ANY circumstances, even when the mother has CHOSEN to carry her unborn to birth. The principles of the various unborn victims of violence acts grant personhood and protection by law for the right to life for the unborn. The opinions of women can be diametrically opposed on this issue and almost always depend on whether the unborn is wanted (a beloved child) or not wanted (a blob of disposable tissue).

George Brunstad