Roe v. Wade, Slavery and the Unborn
African slaves and the unborn…
Today it would be hard to imagine a ruling more controversial than Roe v. Wade, but some might single out the Dred Scott ruling of 1857 for that honor. This decision was a key part of the buildup of hostilities that led to the Civil War, and it is the judgment of some scholars that Dred Scott “probably created more disagreement than any other legal opinion in U.S. history; it became a violently divisive issue in national politics and dangerously undermined the prestige of the Supreme Court.” [1]
This is an excerpt from the Bayly Blog. Do yourself a favor and read the entire post.
On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, this sermon was preached by Tim Bayly, Sunday January 27, 2013, at Clearnote Church, Bloomington, IN. Here is the audio.
What were the Court’s judgments in the Dred Scott case? That…
A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a “citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its “people or citizens.” Consequently, the special rights and immunities guaranteed to citizens do not apply to them.
The language of the Declaration of Independence is equally conclusive: …
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family… But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration…
(T)he men who framed (the Declaration of Independence)… perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others; and they knew that it would not in any part of the civilized world be supposed to embrace the negro race… (Scott v. Stanford, 1856)
…when the Court was handed what was, arguably, the best opportunity for reversal since Roe v. Wade was first issued, although the Court declined to reverse itself, its rationale was telling:
The Roe rule’s limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades, have organized intimate relationships and made choices in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives…
Overruling Roe’s central holding… would seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law… Moreover, the country’s loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court’s failure to keep faith with those who support the decision. A decision to overrule (Roe v. Wade would come) at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court’s legitimacy… (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992)
Read more: http://baylyblog.com/blog/2013/01/fortieth-anniversary-roe-v-wades-bloody-slaughter