![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/5bcb367ffc7e93ff108b45b5-1.jpg\")
<\/a>Justice Tom Parker<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
STATE SUPREME COURT: ROE V. WADE ‘PATENTLY ILLOGICAL’<\/h1>\nShocking decision declares unborn baby is ‘a person’<\/h2>\n
The Alabama Supreme Court\u00a0has ruled that an unborn baby is a \u201cperson\u201d under the law<\/a>, and, consequently, the death of that person can be punished with execution.<\/p>\n Further,\u00a0in a special concurrence<\/a>, Justice Tom Parker called on the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that created a \u201cright\u201d to abortion.<\/p>\n \u201cI write specially to expound upon the principles presented in the main opinion and to note the continued legal anomaly and logical fallacy that is Roe v. Wade,\u201d he said. \u201cI urge the United States Supreme Court to overrule this increasingly isolated exception to the rights of unborn children.\u201d<\/p>\n Parker affirmed the Alabama court\u2019s rationale that \u201cunborn children are persons entitled to the full and equal protection of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n He asserted Roe v. Wade is \u201cwithout historical or constitutional support, carved out an exception to the rights of unborn children and prohibited states from recognizing an unborn child\u2019s inalienable right to life when that right conflicts with a woman\u2019s \u2018right\u2019 to abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis judicially created exception of Roe is an aberration to the natural law \u2026 and common law of the states,\u201d Parker said.<\/p>\n He noted the Alabama court\u2019s opinion stated the \u201cobvious truth that unborn children are people and thus entitled to the full protection of the law\u201d in its decision to reject Jessie Phillips\u2019 arguments \u201cthat the unborn child he murdered, Baby Doe, was not a \u2018person\u2019 under Alabama law.\u201d<\/p>\n In the case, Phillips was charged with the murders of his wife and unborn child, and sentenced to be executed. The state Supreme Court affirmed the sentence, rejecting claims that Phillips could not be sentenced for the unborn child\u2019s death because the child was not a \u201cperson.\u201d<\/p>\n The fault in the Roe decision was cited by Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the majority opinion.<\/p>\n He said the justices didn\u2019t have the scientific evidence to determine if an unborn baby is a person, but \u201cpersonhood\u201d is the foundation of the case.<\/p>\n Blackmun wrote: \u201c(If the) suggestion of personhood [of the preborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus\u2019 right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n The Alabama ruling is not the only one to point out to the U.S. Supreme Court that Roe was wrongly decided.<\/p>\n In August, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Alabama law<\/a>\u00a0banning the gruesome, second-trimester abortion procedure in which limbs are removed from a baby\u2019s body in the womb.<\/p>\n At the time, Chief Judge Ed Carnes lamented in\u00a0his opinion<\/a>\u00a0that he was bound by U.S. Supreme Court precedent to rule against the state, writing that \u201cdismemberment\u201d is the best description of the procedure, which clinically is known as dilation and extraction.<\/p>\n \u201cIn our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,\u201d he wrote, calling the high court\u2019s history of abortion rulings an \u201caberration\u201d of constitutional law.<\/p>\n And Judge Joel Dubina wrote separately to express his agreement with Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia in Gonzales v. Carhart in which Thomas wrote, \u201cI write separately to reiterate my view that the Court\u2019s abortion jurisprudence,\u201d including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, \u201chas no basis in the Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe problem I have, as noted in the Chief Judge\u2019s opinion, is that I am not on the Supreme Court, and as a federal appellate judge, I am bound by my oath to follow all of the Supreme Court\u2019s precedents, whether I agree with them or not,\u201d Dubina wrote.<\/p>\n The opinion had no use for the politically correct language of \u201cchoice\u201d and \u201cwomen\u2019s rights.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis case involves a method of abortion that is clinically referred to as Dilation and Evacuation (D & E). Or dismemberment abortion, as the state less clinically calls it. That name is more accurate because the method involves tearing apart and extracting piece-by-piece from the uterus what was until then a living unborn child,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n