Supreme Court's voting rights decision shows Roe should be overturned
When the Supreme Court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on June 25, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that Congress's actions may not be "based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day."
"Our country has changed," he wrote. "While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
Ironically, Roe v. Wade turned 40 this year.
And in the decades since the decision was handed down, our medical knowledge -- particularly that which is prenatal in nature -- has changed. In fact, that knowledge has changed so much that much of what was regarded as "fact" 40 years ago has "no logical relationship to [prenatal knowledge in] the present day."
For example, 40 years ago, many Americans were able to abide the legalization of abortion by thinking of the unborn child as a mass of DNA or a bundle of cells that felt no pain and lacked cognition.

Now we know that 24-week-old babies yawn in the womb, and 4D-ultrasounds have shown children sucking their thumbs in the womb as well. Moreover, both Ph.D.s and M.D.s now know that unborn children can feel pain at least 20 weeks (likely well before). Indeed, the Supreme Court acknowledged in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that medical advances had so changed viability that the Court had to abandon Roe's trimester framework.
Abortion is not the victimless solution to an "unwanted pregnancy" that women were promised 40 years ago.
We also now know that abortion stops a beating heart. A baby's heart begins to beat at approximately 6 to 7 weeks, and with the right equipment, you can hear it clearly.
Let's face it -- ultrasound technology has made 40 years ago look like the Stone Age. And if we can recognize that outdated facts ought not apply to our voting laws, can we not also realize that other outdated facts should not be used to justify killing our children?
The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot rely upon outdated, inaccurate facts in creating law for the nation. After 40 years of Roe, I hope the Supreme Court will one day soon have the opportunity to take its own advice.
Ad Free / Commenting Login
FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- Trump-O-Phobia Drives Some Americans to Questionable Greener Pastures Overseas
- A Businessman and a Brilliant Strategist
- A Remarkable Headline for a Fascinating Story
- Democrats Unmask Themselves
- How Mexico Became China’s Trojan Horse in U.S. Trade
- Covid Redux: The Bird Flu Scare
- A Taste of the Swamp
- Do We Have 677 Unelected Presidents?
- Global Relations beyond the Prime Directive
- The Democrat Party: The Enemy Within?
Blog Posts
- Hills to Die On: Democrats know how to pick 'em
- Near-death experiences, reliance on oil, and more cataclysmic failures—it’s all just part and parcel of ‘green’ energy
- So where'd America's obesity epidemic come from? Chef Andrew Gruel has a theory ...
- Trump just fired a huge warning shot over Iran’s bow
- Markets respond: Trumpian peace in Russo-Ukrainian war is in the bag
- The time of the hoax
- New York Times goes bipolar on Trump’s border control success
- Mark Kelly decides to offload his Tesla to protest Elon Musk
- The half-million dollar American
- Three things for the U.S. to understand about the Middle East
- Speaker Mike Johnson reveals why the Autopen scandal is a big deal
- The CDC website really needs to update its COVID protocols
- Hands in your back pocket
- Birthright citizenship: The facts
- ‘She’s my little Musk coupe’