Amicus Curiae Brief — Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.

Supreme Court briefJul 29, 2021

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 19-1392

444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

____________________

THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL.,

Respondents.

____________________

On Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________________

Brief Amicus Curiae of

Intercessors for America including its

Intercessor Prayer Partners

in Support of Petitioners

____________________

PHILLIP L. JAUREGUI

WILLIAM J. OLSON*

JUDICIAL ACTION GROUP WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.

1300 I Street, NW

370 Maple Ave. W., Ste. 4

Suite 400 E

Vienna, VA 22180

Washington, DC 20005

(703) 356-5070

wjo@mindspring.com

(202) 216-9309

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record

July 29, 2021

444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

ARGUMENT

JUDICIAL PREOCCUPATION WITH VIABILITY

LEADS TO ERRONEOUS DECISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. THIS COURT’S ABORTION JURISPRUDENCE IS

BUILT ON A PAGAN FOUNDATION . . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. THIS COURT HAS CONSTITUTIONALIZED MORAL

ISSUES AND UNDERMINED MORALITY . . . . . . . 14

IV. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS HAVE DE FACTO

ESTABLISHED PAGANISM AS OUR NATION’S

RELIGION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Elevation of the Collective over the

Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Evicting God from Government Schools

Rewriting the Establishment Clause to

Undermine Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

V. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS TO EMBRACE

PAGANISM HAVE OPENED THE PEOPLE TO

GOD’S RIGHTEOUS TEMPORAL JUDGMENTS . . . 23

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

HOLY BIBLE

Genesis 1:26-27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Genesis 4:8-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Genesis 9:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Exodus 20:13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Leviticus 18:6-23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Leviticus 18:24-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 30

Numbers 35:30-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25, 26

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Deuteronomy 16:20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1 Samuel 2:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

2 Kings 24:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Psalm 9:15-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30, 31

Psalm 110:6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Psalm 139:13-14, 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Proverbs 1:7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Proverbs 6:16-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Proverbs 29:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Jeremiah 1:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 30

Daniel 4:17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Hosea 8:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

John 10:10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Romans 13:1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Ephesians 2:1-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

I Timothy 2:4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

U.S. CONSTITUTION

Amendment V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Amendment XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 13, 22

CASES

Abington School District v. Schempp,

374 U.S. 203 (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) . . . . . . . . . 24

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156 (1957) . . . . . . . . 17

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) . . . . . . 21

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) . . . . . . 2, 8

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) . . . 13

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) . . 19

Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) . . 16, 17

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo,

140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC,

576 U.S. 446 (2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Korematsu v. United States,

323 U.S. 214 (1944) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 31

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . 22

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) . . . . . . 21

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

McCollum v. Board of Education,

333 U.S. 203 (1948) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky,

545 U.S. 844 (2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) . . . . . 22

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) . . . . . . 14

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania

v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) . . . . . . . . 6, passim

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe,

530 U.S. 290 (2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . 22

Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) . . . . . . .

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392 (2018) . . . . . . .

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) . . . . . . .

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) . . . . . . . . .

MISCELLANEOUS

Abortion Facts, Pro-Life Action League . . . . . . . . . 5

“Abortion Procedures,” Abort73.com . . . . . . . . . . . 5

R. Alcorn, “Finding Forgiveness After an

Abortion,” Eternal Perspective Ministries

(Jan. 21, 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

American Life League, “Abortion Statistics” . . . . 27

W. Barr, Speech at ADF (May 20, 2021) . . . . . . . 21

Amy Coney Barrett, “Justice Scalia and the

Future of the Court,” Jacksonville Univ.

Public Policy Institute (Nov. 3, 2016) . . . . . . 13

M. Bilger, “Scientists Use Scalps From Aborted

Babies to Create ‘Humanized Mice’ ”

LifeNews.com (Dec. 18, 2020) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

William O. Douglas, The Court Years, 1939-1975:

The Autobiography of William O. Douglas

(Random House: 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

M.S. Evans, The Theme is Freedom

(Regnery: 1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation

(Yale Univ. Press: 1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia

(Harper & Row:1964) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

P. Lillback, Wall of Misconception

(Providence Forum Press: 2007) . . . . . . . . . . 18

A. Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address

(Mar. 4, 1865) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Oral Argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry,

No. 12-144 (March 26, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

H. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: The

Conflict of Christian Faith and American

Culture (Crossway Books: 1990) . . . . . . . . . . 23

Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act: The

Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination

(Henry Holt & Co.: 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

John Paul Stevens, Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court

Memoir (Little, Brown & Co.: 2011) . . . . . 15, 16

“Testimonials of Women Who Have Had

Abortions,” Pro-Life America . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

H. Titus, “Ending Abortion,” The Forecast,

Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jan. 1997) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

M. Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser

Magistrates (CreateSpace: 2013) . . . . . . . . . . 28

S.D. Warren & L.D. Brandeis, “The Right to

Privacy,” 4 HARV. L. REV. 193

(Dec. 15, 1890) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE1

Intercessors for America (“IFA”) is a

Massachusetts not-for-profit corporation, with offices

in Purcellville, Virginia, exempt from federal income

taxation under IRC section 501(c)(3). IFA was founded

shortly after, and in direct response to, this Court’s

decision in Roe v. Wade. IFA has grown from a small

group to a network reaching over 1 million Americans

praying for the nation and the protection of life by all

branches of government on whose behalf this amicus

brief is also being submitted. As well as through their

individual prayers posted on www.appealforlife.com,

many thousands of Intercessors have prayed the

following prayer for this case:

Lord, it grieves my heart to think of the

millions of lives lost because of legal abortion;

each life is precious in Your sight, woven

together in the womb. We ask that You would

forgive us of this national sin and cause the

U.S. Supreme Court Justices to agree with You

that every life is precious. We deserve

judgment, but we humbly ask for the wisdom

of heaven to bring godly conviction upon our

nine Supreme Court Justices. Lord, cause

them to rule in favor of protecting life. Lord,

we appeal to You as we appeal for life. In

Jesus’ name, Amen.

It is hereby certified that counsel for the parties have filed

blanket consents to the filing of this and other amicus briefs; that

no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part; and

that no person other than these amici curiae, their members, or

their counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or

submission.

Scant weeks after Roe was decided, a group of

Christian leaders, including international Bible

teacher, author and theologian Derek Prince, began to

gather to develop an organizational response to this

Court’s assault on life. Derek Prince was the author of

over 100 books, including Shaping History Through

Prayer and Fasting (Whitaker House: 2002), which

reflects the founding principles of Intercessors for

America. The result was the founding of IFA. These

leaders saw Roe as a tragedy, but also a sign — a

warning — to the People, that the nation had opened

itself up to the judgment of a Holy and Righteous God.

Biblical principles were being replaced by pagan

principles. At such a time, they believed, it would be

necessary to rally Americans to call upon the Lord.

IFA continues to urge Christians to engage in the

disciplines of prayer and fasting to overturn Roe — the

same way in which the People have responded to other

threats to the country throughout its history.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Justice Kennedy recognized: “No one would

dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden

with the power to devalue human life.” Gonzales v.

Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 158 (2007). In truth, this

Court’s abortion decisions have led not just to the

devaluing of human life, but also to the destruction of

human life. The following are eight different gruesome

abortion methods currently being practiced in the

United States:

•

Suction (Vacuum) Aspiration. In the most

common abortion method, the cervix is dilated, and

•

a hollow plastic tube with a sharp tip is inserted

into the cervix and then into the uterus. An

aspirator attached to the tube tears the body of the

fetus apart and suctions the pieces through the

tube.

Dilation and Curettage (D&C). A curette (a

sharp looped knife) is inserted into the uterus to

dismember the fetus and placenta.

Intracardiac Injection Abortion. A needle is

guided into the fetus’s heart with the aid of

ultrasound, and poison (often potassium chloride

or digoxin) is injected, causing a heart attack.

Intracardiac injection is most commonly used for

“pregnancy reduction” abortions following in vitro

fertilization (IVF) procedures, if multiple embryos

were implanted to increase the likelihood of

pregnancy. Intracardiac injection is used in lateterm abortions when there is the likelihood of

delivering a live baby in order to avoid state laws

that would require the baby to be resuscitated and

given medical care.

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E). In the second

trimester, the fetus’s tendons, muscles, and bones

are more developed.

Therefore, forceps are

inserted into the uterus to forcibly dismember the

fetus, and the pieces are removed individually.

Larger fetuses must also have their skulls crushed

so the pieces can pass through the cervix.

Dilation

and

Extraction

(D&X

Partial-Birth Abortion). Typically performed in

the late second or third trimester. The cervix must

first be dilated, and forceps are then inserted into

the uterus to grasp the fetus’s legs. The fetus is

delivered breech while the head remains inside the

•

birth canal. Using blunt-tipped surgical scissors,

the base of the skull is pierced, and a suction

catheter is inserted to extract the contents of the

skull. This causes the skull to collapse, and the

dead fetus is then fully delivered. This Court’s

ruling upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion

Ban Act in 2007 did not end D&X abortions, as

abortionists now use a lethal intracardiac injection

to ensure that the fetus is dead before being

partially delivered.

Instillation (Saline) Abortion. Amniotic fluid is

removed from the uterus and replaced with a

saline solution, which the fetus swallows. The

fetus is killed by salt poisoning, dehydration, brain

hemorrhage, and convulsions.

Prostaglandin Abortion.

A dose of

prostaglandin hormones is injected into the uterine

muscle, which induces violent labor resulting in

the death of the fetus. Prostaglandin abortions,

typically performed in the second and early third

trimester, are rarely used today, due to the

relatively high chance that the fetus will survive

the abortion and be born alive.

Chemical (Medical) Abortion. A woman is

administered an abortion-inducing compound

called mifepristone (also called RU-486 or

Mifeprex) to block the action of progesterone, the

hormone vital to maintaining the lining of the

uterus. As the nutrient lining disintegrates, the

embryo starves. Subsequently, the woman takes a

dose of artificial prostaglandins which initiate

uterine contractions and cause the embryo to be

expelled from the uterus.2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In 2018, the State of Mississippi enacted HB 1510,

the Gestational Age Act, which restricted physicians

from terminating the life of preborn babies who had

reached 15 weeks’ gestational age except in

circumstances involving medical emergencies or severe

fetal abnormality.

The Act included numerous

legislative findings about the extent of development of

a 15-week-old preborn baby, including its ability to feel

pain.

An abortion clinic sought a temporary

restraining order against the statute and the district

court granted the injunction. After strictly limiting

discovery to the issue of viability, the district court

granted Respondents’ summary judgment motion and

issued a permanent injunction. Jackson Women’s

Health Organization v. Currier, 349 F. Supp. 3d 536

(S.D. Miss. 2018). The Fifth Circuit unanimously

affirmed.3 Jackson Women’s Health Organization v.

Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265, 277 (5th Cir. 2019).

See Abortion Facts, Pro-Life Action League. See also, “Abortion

Procedures,” Abort73.com. Videos reveal even more starkly the

unbelievable brutality of abortion, such as “This is Abortion.”

This Court would not allow any of these methods to be used to

execute a convicted murderer under a sentence of death, but they

are lawfully imposed every day on the preborn.

Judge Ho addressed the intemperate language of the district

court and its animus to the pro-life position when it accused the

Mississippi legislature of being motivated by sexism and racism.

Dobbs at 278 (Ho, J., concurring).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Today, abortion may seem to have been normalized

among some in this country, but it cannot be disputed

that when Roe was decided 47 years ago, most

Americans were profoundly shocked. They were

astonished that this Court would create a right to

abortion — an induced termination of a pregnancy

with the destruction of the unborn baby. They simply

could not believe that this Court would claim to be

interpreting the Constitution while purporting to

create a right out of whole cloth, in disregard of the

Declaration of Independence’s recognition that all

Americans were both “created” and “endowed” with the

“unalienable” Right to “Life,” also protected by the

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Petitioners have asked this Court to “overrule Roe

and Casey” for being “egregiously wrong,” “hopelessly

unworkable,” and having “inflicted profound damage.”

Brief for Petitioners at 14. These amici support that

request.

First, the narrow focus of the court below on

“viability” is badly misplaced. A baby in the womb is

completely viable, unless and until it is removed from

its natural surroundings. Second, how a society treats

a preborn baby is a quintessentially religious matter —

a fact which cannot be avoided by claiming the issue is

secular. In fact, in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun

implicitly acknowledged this to be a religious issue

when he juxtaposed the ways in which paganism and

Christianity viewed abortion, and in the end, sided

with the pagan position.

Third, the constitutionalization of the abortion

issue was a profound mistake made by this Court.

This was yet another instance where this Court placed

a veneer of legalism over its own policy preferences

and creatively identified a place in the Constitution

where it could find this unenumerated right. Fourth,

this Court’s treatment of the abortion issue cannot be

viewed in isolation.

Although this Court’s

jurisprudence on other moral and religious issues is

not before this Court, it provides an important

backdrop to understand how comprehensively prior

Courts have embraced pagan views over Biblical views.

Lastly, the Court should be aware that the fabric

of the nation seems to many to be unraveling. The

point is that God rules in the affairs of men, and He

cannot ignore the shedding of innocent blood. Holy

Writ provides many illustrations of how the righteous

judgment of a Holy God can be triggered against the

people of a land.

In sum, the Intercessors amici are fully in

agreement with Justice Thomas’ assertion: “Roe is

grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most

fundamental is that its core holding — that the

Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her

unborn child — finds no support in the text of the

Fourteenth Amendment.” June Medical Services, LLC

v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103, 2150 (2020).

ARGUMENT

JUDICIAL PREOCCUPATION WITH

VIABILITY LEADS TO ERRONEOUS

DECISIONS.

The district court viewed the case in exceedingly

simple terms. It viewed Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113

(1973), as “settled law” establishing that “the

Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman’s basic right

to choose an abortion.” Currier at 539. And, it viewed

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.

Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), as affirming what it

termed “‘the central holding of Roe’”:

“‘Before

viability, the State’s interests are not strong enough

to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition

of a substantial obstacle to the woman’s effective right

to elect the procedure.’” Currier at 539 (emphasis

added).

Since the district court concluded that the

“established medical consensus” is that “viability

typically begins between 23 to 24 weeks,” and this law

seeks to regulate abortions after 15 weeks, it was

“unequivocally” unconstitutional, and no other

legislative findings or facts would be considered. Id. at

539 (emphasis added).

Mississippi sought to focus attention on the State’s

interest in preventing pain and preserving life —

considerations that both Roe and Gonzales v. Carhart,

550 U.S. 124 (2007), also recognized. However, the

court would have none of those concerns, focusing

laser-like on viability. Likewise, this Court granted

Mississippi’s petition for certiorari limited to one issue:

“Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective

abortions are unconstitutional.” Petition for Certiorari

at i (emphasis added).

In elevating viability to constitutional talisman

status, the judiciary has erred. From the moment of

conception, the baby growing in its natural habitat —

the womb4 — is unquestionably viable, unless an

abortionist intervenes and removes the baby. To be

sure, a baby cannot survive outside the womb at 15

weeks given 2021 technology, but neither can a 24week old baby or even an infant be deemed to be viable

without significant care and feeding. With the advent

of artificial wombs, a baby theoretically can develop

and thrive never having been in a human womb.

Should that scientific breakthrough alter the date after

which the preborn can be protected, viability is

arguably less meaningful than the standard of

quickening (when the mother feels the movements),

formation (when the baby begins to look human), or

when a baby feels the pain of poisoning or cutting used

to effect an abortion.

Viability depends upon context. It is an uncertain

standard even for adults. A person who is brain dead

but alive is not truly viable. A person on a respirator

is not viable without the respirator. A deep sea diver

is viable until his air hose is cut. An insulin-dependent

diabetic is viable so long as he receives insulin. A

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you

were born I consecrated you.” Jeremiah 1:5 (NASB).

person with advanced Alzheimer’s and a host of other

illnesses is not viable without care.

Indeed, the federal government has long protected

babies in utero — particularly since the tragedy of the

Thalidomide “wonderdrug” which led to fetal

deformities. To prevent such an event in the future,

the FDA requires that new approved drugs be

evaluated for teratogenic risk to protect babies in the

womb from the moment of conception — not viability.

Holy Writ asserts, and amici intercessors believe,

that life begins not with viability, but at conception.

“For you created my inmost being; you knit me

together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I

am fearfully and wonderfully made... Your eyes saw

my unformed body....” Psalm 139:13-14, 16 (NIV). God

hates “hands that shed innocent blood....” Proverbs

6:16-17 (KJV). Amici intercessors believe that the

decision to sanction abortion based on “viability”

embraces pagan values and rejects Biblical values.

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I

have come that they may have life, and have it to the

full.” John 10:10 (NIV).

II. T H I S

COURT’S

ABORTION

JURISPRUDENCE IS BUILT ON A PAGAN

FOUNDATION.

Roe v. Wade begins its defense of abortion based on

a survey of pagan nations. The Court discussed

“Ancient Attitudes,” concluding that during Greek

times and the Roman Era,“[a]ncient religion did not

bar abortion” and abortion “‘was resorted to without

scruple.’” Roe at 130. On the other hand, the

“emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement

with” the view that “the embryo was animate from the

moment of conception, and abortion meant destruction

of a living being.” Id. at 130-31. Thus, the Court

properly viewed abortion to be very much a religious

question, which the Court correctly understood to be a

choice between Christianity and pagan doctrine:

The Christian tradition from the earliest

period says the unborn child is a human life

that deserves respect and ought to be

protected; the pagan view tells us it is not a

legal person, and thus entitled to no

protection.... Justice Harry Blackmun ...

simply presents the pagan and Christian views

as if both were entitled to respectful hearing —

with the weight of the evidence going to the

pagans. He thus tells us, almost in as many

words, that permissive abortion is a move

away from Christianity to a resurgent

pagan ethic. [M.S. Evans, The Theme is

Freedom (Regnery: 1994) at 127-28 (emphasis

added).]

During the intervening years, science has

developed to the point that we now know vastly more

about the development of a preborn baby than was

known in 1973. But science cannot determine how we

should treat the unborn baby, and thus we are still, at

base, left with a religious question. On that ethical

and religious issue, the Court found persuasive the

modern, secular views of organizations such as the

American Medical Association and the American

Public Health Association.

The religious and moral nature of the issue is now

further demonstrated by the fact that this Court’s

abortion decisions have led to the creation of a

secondary market where the “products of abortion” are

routinely collected, processed, packaged, and sold for

a variety of purposes, including creation of “humanized

mice” for research.5 To the average American,

merchandising in body parts is inhumane, but under

Roe, it has become accepted practice within the

medical and pharmaceutical industry.

The Court in Roe admitted, “The Constitution does

not explicitly mention any right of privacy,” but

nonetheless concluded that the right “founded in the

Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty

and restrictions upon state action ... is broad enough to

encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to

terminate her pregnancy.”6 Roe at 152-53. The Court

See M. Bilger, “Scientists Use Scalps From Aborted Babies to

Create ‘Humanized Mice’” LifeNews.com (Dec. 18, 2020).

Former Law Professor and Founding Dean of Regent Law

School Herbert W. Titus explained how Roe also violates the

Equal Protection Clause:

As the Supreme Court observed in the SlaughterHouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 81 (1873), the Clause was

specifically designed to protect former slaves who were

being denied their rights to life, liberty and property

because states were not enforcing the common law on

their behalf.

The Equal Protection Clause was designed to

guarantee such common law protection by denying to the

relied in part (id.) on the right to privacy that Justice

Douglas claimed to have discovered somewhere in the

“penumbras formed by emanations” drawn from the

Constitution.7 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,

484 (1965). The Court never bothered to examine the

meaning of “liberty” when the Fourteenth Amendment

was ratified in 1868.

Since the term “privacy” has no textual or

historical context, its use allows the Court to imbue it

with any meaning desired. Here, it was interpreted to

constitutionalize abortion, empowering unelected

justices to be the final arbiter of moral law. In each

abortion case, the threshold constitutional question is

not the merits of the restriction, but “who decides” the

most important moral issues of our day.8

By constitutionalizing social issues, the Justices

have removed them from the ability of Americans to

change policy through elections, undermining our

constitutional republic. As Justice Scalia explained:

States any power to classify or treat any human being as

anything but a legally recognized person. That is exactly

what states are doing when they follow the Supreme

Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade.... [H. Titus, “Ending

Abortion,” The Forecast, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jan. 1997) at 3.]

The right of privacy came on the scene decades after the

Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. See S.D. Warren & L.D.

Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” 4 HARV. L. REV. 193 (Dec. 15,

1890) 193-220.

See generally, Amy Coney Barrett, “Justice Scalia and the

Future of the Court,” Jacksonville Univ. Public Policy Institute

(Nov. 3, 2016).

“A system of government that makes the People

subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers

does not deserve to be called a democracy.” Obergefell

v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 717 (2015) (Scalia, J.,

dissenting).

III. THIS COURT HAS CONSTITUTIONALIZED

MORAL ISSUES AND UNDERMINED

MORALITY.

America gradually has ceased to be a nation “of the

people, by the people, and for the people,” as this Court

has stolen away our nation’s most fundamental moral,

cultural, and religious issues incrementally from the

People and their elected officials. This Court’s

decisions sanctioning the termination of life in the

womb, and many more as well, give the illusion of legal

reasoning as a cover to raw political acts. Doing so,

this Court has transformed our constitutional republic

into an oligarchy.

The American people are

longsuffering, but are not oblivious, increasingly

viewing this Court as just another political branch of

the federal government. However, if this Court

returns to its proper constitutional function of

resolving “cases” and “controversies” according to the

“authorial intent” of the Framers, rather than

legislating from the bench, it could regain the trust of

the American people.9

There have been occasional admissions from

members of this Court that the constitutional text is

See generally, E.D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (Yale

Univ. Press: 1973) at vii, 1, 5, 212-23.

not supreme, including this one from nearly a century

ago:

At the constitutional level where we work,

ninety percent of any decision is

emotional. The rational part of us supplies

the reasons for supporting our predilections.

[Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes as

quoted in William O. Douglas, The Court

Years, 1939-1975: The Autobiography of

William O. Douglas (Random House: 1980) at

8 (emphasis added).]

Fast forward a half century, and another Chief

Justice was quoted as putting his judgment over the

text, continuing that ignoble tradition:

Chief Justice [Earl Warren] ... was eager to

have the court issue rulings that reflected

what was best for the country, sometimes

without worrying over legal technicalities or

precedent. “He’d say, ‘cut through the law’.”

[Stuart Pollak, former Law Clerk to Chief

Justice Earl Warren, as quoted in Philip

Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret

History of the Kennedy Assassination (Henry

Holt & Co.: 2013) at 278 (emphasis added).]

When Justice Kennedy was sworn in at a White

House Ceremony, President Reagan made remarks

about the new justice being someone who would follow

the law rather than make it. Justice John Paul

Stevens considered those comments to be “both

offensive and inappropriate,” and “decided not to

attend similar ceremonies at the White House in the

future.” John Paul Stevens, Five Chiefs: A Supreme

Court Memoir (Little, Brown & Co.: 2011) at 207.

On the other hand, Justice Tom Clark warned of

the consequences of lawlessness at any level of

government: “Nothing can destroy a government more

quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or

worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence.”

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659 (1961). What was

true about police is much more true about this Court.

What should this Court do when it realizes it is off

track on a matter of constitutional law? It once was

the view that: “it will hardly be contended that the

decisions of Courts constitute laws. They are, at most,

only evidence of what the laws are; and are not of

themselves laws. They are often reexamined, reversed,

and qualified by the Courts themselves, whenever they

are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or

otherwise incorrect.” Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1, 18

(1842).

Often the doctrine of stare decisis is relied on to

protect decisions that justices favor, even when clearly

in error. However, in a case involving statutory

construction, Justice Alito set out a principle that

should doubly apply here in a constitutional case:

“Stare decisis does not require us to retain [a] baseless

and damaging precedent [which was] a bald act of

policymaking.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC,

576 U.S. 446, 466 (2015) (Alito, J., dissenting). The

contrary view, that “[a]ny departure from settled

precedent ... demands a ‘special justification—over and

above the belief that the precedent was wrongly

decided,’” must not be allowed to protect a decision as

wrong as Roe. Janus v. AFSCME, 138 S. Ct. 2448,

2497 (2018) (Kagan, J., dissenting).

Consider the following exchange during oral

argument in the Obergefell case, revealing how

constitutional “law” evolves.

Justice Scalia: “When did it become

unconstitutional to prohibit gays from

marrying?… Was it always unconstitutional?”

Ted Olson: “It was [un]constitutional when we

— as a culture determined that sexual

orientation is a characteristic of individuals

that they cannot control….”

Justice Scalia: “I see. When did that

happen?…”

Ted Olson: “There’s no specific date in time.

This is an evolutionary cycle.” [Oral

Argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, No. 12144 (March 26, 2013) at 39-40 (emphasis

added).]

These amici urge this Court to follow the guidance

of Justice John Marshall Harlan II: “Evidently it also

needs to be repeated that the overriding responsibility

of this Court is to the Constitution of the United

States, no matter how late it may be that a violation

of the Constitution is found to exist.” Chessman v.

Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 165 (1957) (emphasis added).

IV. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS HAVE DE

FACTO ESTABLISHED PAGANISM AS OUR

NATION’S RELIGION.

This Court’s Roe decision in 1973 can best be

understood in the context of this Court’s decisions that

came before and after it — as part of establishing

paganism as our nation’s religion. In 1909, President

Theodore Roosevelt described the threat to America

posed by paganism:

Progress has brought us both unbounded

opportunities and unbridled difficulties. Thus,

the measure of our civilization will not be that

we have done much, but what we have done

with that much. I believe that the next halfcentury will determine if we will advance the

cause of Christian civilization or revert to the

horrors of brutal paganism. The thought of

modern industry in the hands of Christian

charity is a dream worth dreaming. The

thought of industry in the hands of paganism

is a nightmare beyond imagining. The choice

between the two is upon us. [cited in P.

Lillback, Wall of Misconception at 31-32

(Providence Forum Press: 2007).]

Yet beginning well before Roe, Secular Humanism,

understood by this Court to be another religion, has

been the dominant force behind this Court’s decisions.

See Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n.11 (1961).

Thus, in one area of law after another, this Court has

abandoned the Bible and embraced Secular Humanism

and its ancient cousin: paganism.

Elevation of the Collective over the

Individual.

Christianity is focused on individuals, each of

whom is created in the image of God as an eternal

being who will be held accountable after death. The

Free Exercise Clause established a jurisdictional limit

on government, making clear that the federal

government has no authority to intrude into matters of

“religion.” This Court has never undertaken to define

the noun “religion” but generally treats it as being best

understood by activities which it would describe with

the adjective “religious.” Thus, the Court has created

a divide between the sacred and the secular, which

seeks to narrowly protect “religious” people engaged in

“religious” acts — so long, at least, as there is not a

“compelling governmental interest” to regulate that

behavior. But the “religion” that the framers sought to

protect from government intrusion is much more

expansive than this Court allows. George Mason’s

Virginia’s Declaration of Rights and James Madison’s

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious

Assessments define the term “religion” as the duty

which we owe to our Creator, which is enforceable only

by reason and conviction, and not by force or violence

— the weapons of the state. This Court has refused to

protect this jurisdictional limit on government in

important ways:

•

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) —

The government has no right to mandate our

medical choices, but this Court upheld a

compulsory vaccine law on the theory that there is

•

a benefit to the collective by restricting individual

liberty.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) — Expressly

building on the Jacobson case, this Court

embraced the “science” of Eugenics, which is a

distinctly un-Christian doctrine, and upheld a

state statute permitting compulsory sterilization

for the protection and health of the state.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) —

This Court upheld President Franklin Roosevelt’s

Executive Order 9066, forcibly resettling Japanese

Americans into internment camps. Even when

this Court addressed its error in Korematsu, it

declined to use the conventional language of

“overruling” that prior decision — with Chief

Justice Roberts simply saying it was “overruled in

the court of history.”10

Evicting God from Government Schools.

The Bible teaches that “[t]he fear of the Lord is the

beginning of knowledge.”

Proverbs 1:7 (NIV).

Nevertheless, through many decisions, this Court has

misused the Establishment Clause to throw God out of

the classroom.

•

McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203

(1948) — “Released time” in public schools set

aside for religious instruction is unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) — Official

public school prayer is unconstitutional.

Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2423 (2018).

•

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203

(1963) — State law requiring Bible reading in

public schools is unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) — State

law prohibiting teaching of evolution is

unconstitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) — State

funding of private school teachers using public

textbooks and instructional materials is

unconstitutional, fashioning the Lemon test.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) — One

minute of silence in government schools for

meditation or voluntary prayer is unconstitutional.

Former Attorney General William Barr recently

explained, the “notion that we can hermetically seal off

religion from education [has been] refuted in rather

spectacular fashion.” W. Barr, Speech at ADF (May

20, 2021).

We are rapidly approaching the point — if we

have not already reached the point — at which

the heavy-handed enforcement of secularprogressive orthodoxy through governmentrun schools is totally incompatible with

traditional Christianity.... [I]t may no longer

be fair, practical, or even Constitutional to

provide publicly-funded education solely

through the vehicle of state-operated schools.

[Id.]

Rewriting the Establishment Clause to

Undermine Christianity.

The incorporation of most, but not all, of the Bill of

Rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment so that they could be applied to the states

has allowed the Supreme Court to rewrite the

Constitution to suit the personal preferences of the

justices. To be sure, some of the Bill of Rights could

properly be applied to protect U.S. citizens from state

action as “privileges or immunities clause” of the

Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., McDonald v.

Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 806 (Thomas, J., concurring).

However, the Establishment Clause was clearly

designed to serve as a check on the power of the federal

government — not state or local government. This

Court’s incorporation of the Establishment Clause has

transformed that Amendment from a shield protecting

the states from the federal government into a sword to

be used by the federal courts to attack the authority of

states and to erase from the public square any

reference to Christianity.

•

Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) — State law

requiring posting of Ten Commandments is

unconstitutional. (The design of the courtroom in

which this Court sits incorporates the Ten

Commandments, which someday could be removed

if the Court continues on its present course.)

Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) —

Nondenominational prayer at graduation is

unconstitutional.

•

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530

U.S. 290 (2000) — Student-led prayer at high

school football games is unconstitutional.

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S.

844 (2005) — Ten Commandments display by

county is unconstitutional as an establishment of

religion. (In Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677

(2005), this Court upheld a Ten Commandments

monument on Texas Capitol Grounds, but only as

part of a historical display.)

V. THIS COURT’S DECISIONS TO EMBRACE

PAGANISM HAVE OPENED THE PEOPLE

TO GOD’S RIGHTEOUS TEMPORAL

JUDGMENTS.

Dr. Herbert Schlossberg, a leading scholar on the

relationship between Christianity and the societies in

which it has existed, affirms that paganism is a

religion:

But anyone with a hierarchy of values has

placed something at its apex, and whatever

that is is the god he serves. The Old and New

Testaments call such gods idols.... Western

society, in turning away from Christian faith,

has turned to other things. This process is

commonly called secularization, but that

conveys only the negative aspect. The word

connotes the turning away from the

worship of God while ignoring the fact that

something is being turned to in its place.

[H. Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: The

Conflict of Christian Faith and American

Culture (Crossway Books: 1990) at 5-6 (bold

added).]11

If it is true that “the Most High rules in the

kingdom of men” (Daniel 4:17 (NKJV)), then it should

concern us that the Bible also warns that nations

“make idols for themselves to their own destruction.”

Hosea 8:4 (NIV). People have eternal life, and after

death will face a judgment, and there are also

temporal judgments that people face for disobedience.

But, since nations do not have eternal life, their

judgments are temporal.

It would seem that

government officials spend little time thinking about

how God would view their decisions, but it is

particularly critical to the nation that judges follow the

rule: “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue....”

Deuteronomy 16:20 (NASB).

By constitutionalizing an atextual right of

abortion, this Court has taken this issue out of the

hands of elected officials. In response, at any point,

Congress could have limited the appellate jurisdiction

of this Court to negate Roe, but it has never done so.

And the States and the People could have resisted this

Court, as they did after this Court upheld the Fugitive

Slave Act.12 But that has not yet happened. In the

Bob Dylan penned a modern statement of this truth. See

“Gotta Serve Somebody.”

In 1859, this Court invalidated a state court decision for

contradicting a decision of a federal court which upheld the

Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. See Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506

(1859). In response to Justice Taney’s decision for the Court, the

Wisconsin Legislature declared the federal Fugitive Slave Act to

past, pro-lifers were able to take the position that if

they did not participate in abortion, this national sin

would not be laid to their charge.

However,

particularly with the Obamacare mandate to impose

the costs of abortion on all insureds, with the

threatened repeal of the Hyde Amendment, and the

revocation of the conscience protection of health care

workers, increasingly the People are being compelled

by government to participate in or facilitate abortion.

But even without individual participation, there are

serious consequences for those who are part of the

polity of a nation that has followed this Court’s lead to

destroy millions of unborn babies.

The Bible is clear — all humans are made in the

image of God. See Genesis 1:26-27. Whether male or

female; whether young or old; whether white or black;

whether Jew or Gentile; whether small or large;

whether born or preborn — all are made in the image

of God. The Bible is also clear that murder is a

violation of God’s law. See Exodus 20:13. Murder is

deemed to be a capital offense. See Genesis 9:6;

Numbers 35:30-34.

Because God is rich in mercy, an individual’s

participation in abortion is not unforgivable. Many

women have been deceived into abortions by “trusted

sources.”13 When the truth is realized, moral guilt can

be “without authority, void, and of no force” in the state of

Wisconsin. Wisconsin J.Res. 1859.

“Testimonials of Women Who Have Had Abortions,” Pro-Life

America.

lead one to repentance, and to total forgiveness and

spiritual restoration.14 See, e.g., Ephesians 2:1-22; 1

Timothy 2:4. But individual accountability is only one

part of the issue, and often overlooked are the

consequences of sin for a nation.

Governments appear to believe that they have

latitude to allow the murder of persons made in the

image of God, but they do not. If there is not justice —

the bloodguilt is put upon the land and the community

where the injustice was tolerated. This matter is of

such importance that the Scriptures go into great

depths to teach how a land and community can expiate

the bloodguilt.

When a murder takes place, God’s law is clear in

Numbers 35:33 (NIV) that “atonement cannot be made

for the land on which blood has been shed, except by

the blood of the one who shed it.” Hence, the death

penalty. Bloodguilt certainly would apply where the

murder of innocents is committed with the blessing

and protection of the state.

This principle of bloodguilt applies to all nations.

In Scripture, there is an identification of the criminal

with both the land and the people. And unless the

criminal is punished, justice is not met. When the

murderer cannot be found, the elders of the nearby

towns or cities were to measure the distance from their

city to where the body was found in order to determine

whose city was closest to the body. Once that was

See generally, R. Alcorn, “Finding Forgiveness After an

Abortion,” Eternal Perspective Ministries (Jan. 21, 2010).

determined, an unworked heifer was to be secured. To

remove the bloodguilt, the elders were to take the

heifer to the nearest valley with a flowing river and

there kill it. The elders, each of them, then had to

wash their hands over the heifer and declare — “Our

hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen

it.” Deuteronomy 21:1-9 (NKJV).

America is awash with innocent blood from the

murder of 61.8 million15 preborn persons through the

brutal means of abortion. We cannot say “[o]ur hands

did not shed this blood, nor did our eyes seen it done.”

Deuteronomy 21:7 (NIV). All Americans know this

shedding of innocent blood is occurring and has

occurred for nearly 50 years. And we have tolerated it.

Believing in the supremacy of this Court’s

constitutional decisions, the nation submitted to Roe

and its progeny and increasingly yielded to and

participated in this national sin.

America is under bloodguilt, and we should not be

surprised that God may bring — or may now be

bringing — His judgment upon America and

Americans for all this shedding of innocent blood.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this reality when he

declared:

I tremble for my country when I reflect that

God is just; that his justice cannot sleep

forever. [T. Jefferson, Notes on the State of

Virginia (Harper & Row:1964) at 156.]

See American Life League, Abortion Statistics.

When this Court sanctioned the right of men and

women to murder their own sons and daughters, it

encouraged those actions. This was not the proper role

of government. The civil government has the duty and

authority to bring those guilty of murder to justice.

See Romans 13:1-4. If God-ordained authorities refuse

to carry out their duty before a Holy God, He cannot

deny Himself. The land itself will experience God’s

“eviction notice.” The people and the land will suffer

His just judgment.

The nation’s lesser magistrates have all complied

with this Court’s decision and have failed to interpose

on the theory that the Supreme Court has ruled and

all we can do is obey.16 Neither have the people

demanded that their magistrates interpose against

this shedding of innocent blood.

Abraham Lincoln understood bloodguilt. In his

Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln stated:

Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray that

— this mighty scourge of war may speedily

pass away. Yet, if God will that it continue ...

until every drop of blood drawn with the lash,

shall be paid by another drawn with the sword,

as was said three thousand years ago, so still

it must be said, “the judgments of the Lord, are

true and righteous altogether.” [A. Lincoln,

Second Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1865).]

See generally, M. Trewhella, The Doctrine of the Lesser

Magistrates (CreateSpace: 2013).

The biblical doctrine Lincoln was referring to when

he observed that the Civil War was the result of the

judgment of God was the doctrine of blood guiltiness.

Close to 630,000 men died to atone for the sin of

slavery. Our nation violated the liberty of black men

and women. God warned our nation for several

decades to let them go free. Our nation refused. The

Civil War followed.

These are grave words for Americans. All suffered

the just judgment of God. All were culpable. Not just

those who shed blood, but all the people — because

they tolerated the evil. One can only tremble to think

what awaits our nation today due to the wholesale

slaughter of our nameless sons and daughters.

Americans have tolerated the evil being done to the

preborn — and this brings us all under the just

judgment of God.

God judges all nations, not just Israel, but the Lord

then warns Israel to obey His law “lest the land vomit

you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the

nations that were before you.” Leviticus 18:28 (NKJV).

The Lord’s prophets declared His judgment upon

Damascus, Gaza, Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab,

Philistia, Egypt, Hazor, Elam, Babylon, Ninevah, and

more. As it says in Psalm 110:6 (KJV), “He shall judge

among the heathen.” And as it says in 1 Samuel 2:10,

(NKJV) “[h]e shall judge the ends of the earth.”

All nations are accountable to God’s law, and God

judges all nations. For example, the people of Canaan

were in rebellion to the Lord. The Lord judged them

and brought into Canaan His people Israel. The Lord

then listed the sins and crimes of the Canaanite people

(see Leviticus 18:6-23) and then summarizes their

consequences:

Do not defile yourselves with any of these

things; for by all these the nations are

defiled, which I am casting out before you.

For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the

punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the

land vomits out its inhabitants. [Id., 18:2428 (emphasis added).]

Judgment may be withheld for a time, such as in

the days of Jeremiah — a prophet to the nations —

who preached judgment for 50 years before it came

upon Jerusalem and all of Judah. See Jeremiah 1:5.

Similarly, Manasseh filled Jerusalem with innocent

blood, but God’s hand of judgment did not fall

immediately upon Manasseh and his generation. See

2 Kings 24:4.

America is no different. When this nation will be

judged for shedding innocent blood, only God knows.

The blood of the innocent preborn cries out from the

ground of our nation just as Abel’s blood cried out from

the ground to the Lord. See Genesis 4:8-11.

America should remember the words of the

Psalmist:

The nations have sunk down in the pit which

they made; In the net which they hid, their

own foot is caught. The Lord is known by

the judgment He executes; The wicked is

snared in the work of his own hands.... Selah.

The wicked shall be turned into hell, And all

the nations that forget God. [Psalm 9:15-17

(NKJV) (bold added).]

The Holy Bible promises that “[w]hen the

righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but

when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”

Proverbs 29:2 (KJV). This case presents a critical

opportunity for this Court to act righteously and end

the slaughter of the preborn and the shedding of

innocent blood.

CONCLUSION

Amici Intercessors pray that this Court, as it

recently did with Korematsu v. United States, would

use the occasion of this important case to review and

repudiate Roe, relegating it and its progeny to the

dustbin of history.

Respectfully submitted,

PHILLIP L. JAUREGUI

JUDICIAL ACTION GROUP

1300 I Street, NW

Suite 400 E

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 216-9309

WILLIAM J. OLSON*

WILLIAM J. OLSON, P.C.

370 Maple Ave. W., Ste. 4

Vienna, VA 22180

(703) 356-5070

wjo@mindspring.com

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

*Counsel of Record

July 29, 2021

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.