top of page

Dobbs is not the worst case ever

Moments after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, there was a litany of celebrities and average Twitter users that were quick to claim that this decision was a grave injustice. Many went so far as to claim that this case was the worst decision the Court had ever made. With the decision, many elected officials claim that they will reject the Court’s ruling by claiming many illogical emotional claims. Maxine Waters, Democrat from California, openly spoke to the media about how she wants to “defy” the United States Supreme Court. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez came out in response to the Court’s decision with seven different ways that the decision to protect the lives of children in the womb can be reversed. Potentially even justifying what the left has called an insurrection in the past.

Last I remember, those who speak about and question the actions of a branch of the government and act in the way that major democrats are acting, result in Congressional investigations—leading to indictments, and people being called American terrorists. It leaves me asking why is one side is condemned while the other is allowed to justify rejection of the Court and defend the mass killings of the unborn.

The aftermath and fallout of the overturning of Roe v. Wade truly reflected everything terrible in America. Regardless of political affiliation, many began to act morally reprehensible manner. They were acting childishly by making unfounded claims about the Justices that disagreed with them. Showing a true lack of understanding of the history of the Supreme Court.

An important note is that the Dobbs decision only places abortion laws into the hands of the state lawmakers. This means that there is the possibility that some states will allow legal abortions, and some will make abortion illegal. The Court did not remove a constitutionally protected right to abortion because no right to abortion is outlined in any amendment. Rather, when the Supreme Court decided Roe, they wrote something into the constitution instead of having the states decide on a constitutional amendment. Even former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believed Roe was poorly decided. Although she supported abortion, she understood that how the Court acted in 1973 was too extreme and rushed; it was clear that the Court did too much with one decision—furthering the factual statement that fifty years ago, nine men in black robes created an entirely new standard for the federal government that was never a power that was granted to the federal government.

This means that when individuals claim that only women can have an opinion on this issue, it is an argumentative fallacy. Fun fact: there were more women on the Court during the Dobbs decision than when either Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided. Amy Coney Barrett, current Supreme Court Justice, is the mother of her seven children. While being a mother to both biological children and adoptive children, Justice Barrett has risen to one of the most prestigious jobs in the country. She would be a prime example of a mother who can use her superpower to create human life and have an intense career.

There are over 63 million unborn children that are happy with the recent decision because the Supreme Court is creating a path to reverse previous decisions that placed requirements to qualify as life. Although those in the womb do not have Twitter accounts that did not mean that those who have not been aborted haven’t rushed to the Twitter-sphere to call this decision in Dobbs the worst Court decision in the history of the Court.

This is exceptionally problematic for two reasons.

First, this view expressed by many is a direct indictment of the American school system not teaching the youth of America. Second is how extremely short-sighted these individuals are that are claiming that the two hundred plus years of the Court that a case overruling a poorly decided case is the worst.

Both show the lack of historical understanding and a willingness to listen to mainstream media and social media that is heavily pushing an agenda rather than doing their own research. The willingness in the court to pass learning and understanding to others to follow like sheep is a terrible direction for the public that needs to be changed immediately.

In Fact, numerous cases in the Supreme Court’s history have been extremely horrendous. It is much worse than a decision allowing states to make their own laws on a given issue. In order to discuss the worst Supreme Court cases, it is essential to look at the entire history of the Court. For clarification, the recent decision in Dobbs is nowhere near what could be considered one of the top five worse decisions in the Court’s history. In no particular order, these are five of the worst Supreme Court decisions that had lasting impacts on the country that reflect poorly on the aspirations of the country.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1957)

This is easily one of the worst cases in the history of the Supreme Court and one of the worst beliefs in the history of the United States. This case put into law that an individual who was a descendant of slaves was not allowed to be considered a citizen of the United States.

The argument that abortion supporters are currently making is the same that slaveholders made after the law was corrected. The Court said that black Americans were not fully human and then later corrected the terrible decision that was made in 1957. The slaveholders could have complained that they had been stripped of their constitutional rights. Both abortion and slavery being morally reprehensible is the correct view because both remove the inherent right to life that all members of creation deserve.

For those who argue that Roe was allowed for fifty years, this case, Scott v. Sanford, was around for over fifty years. Does this mean that Brown v. Board should not have overturned this case? Just because something is in the law does not mean it is moral and should stand for eternity.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

As a country, we can thank the Court for coming together in 1954 to decide Brown v. Board of Education, which overruled Plessy. This is extremely important because Plessy v. Ferguson is the Supreme Court case that created the idea of “separate but equal,” a terrible and inherently racist statement. This statement and decision gave a false sense of racial reconciliation throughout the country, leading to a more deeply divided country.

In comparison to the Dobbs decision, there is none. Refusing to give the right to life that African Americans did not have after this Supreme Court decision is exponentially worse than allowing states to choose if a woman can get an abortion.

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

During World War II, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. This order from President Roosevelt forced Japanese Americans to leave their homes because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. In a 6-3 decision, the Court decided that forcing Japanese Americans out of their homes and into camps for the alleged protection of the country was constitutional.

This case made the forced incarceration and movement to camps legal because of fears surrounding Japanese Americans' potential affiliations to Japan. No case or evidence was brought against a specific induvial. Rather an entire group of people was judged on immutable traits typically protected by US law.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

No matter if you agree with the information on the leaflets being passed out concerning the draft, the issue with this decision is the “clear and present danger” test. This created a problematic test for how the federal government is allowed to curtail citizens' speech under the guise of public defense. Overly board tests that the government uses to take expressed constitutional amendment rights from the citizens are never limited by the government since once it gives itself power, it will never give up that authority.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

In this Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled 8-1 that there were genetic traits that were viewed as unwanted for transmission from generation to generation—allowing for the forced sterilization of those that were considered by society as not good enough to have their rights protected. Much like those who defend Roe, in Buck v. Bell, personhood and humanity had lines drawn between each. There becomes a requirement to have access to rights such as life or not being forcibly sterilized.

Although the founders struggled with acting morally, they did understand that everyone was endowed by their Creator. Creating distinctions where individuals gain their rights is both inherently unconstitutional and immoral. Attempting to remove an individual’s responsibility for their actions means that there is never going to be a stopping point.

Each of these five different Supreme Court decisions reflects highly problematic precedents and moral holdings that many in our country believed previously. Each case worked against the inherent rights that each individual has, and that is not given to the individual by the government if the rights that people have been provided by the government ultimately give too much authority to those that work in government and harm those that are being governed. While the government is not the actor giving people rights, it is then required of the people not to look to the government of r their rights.

In the wake of the Dobbs decision, too many conversations are centering around the idea that the government needs to take care of what are being called “unwanted children.” The claim is that since there has been a new life created, with a new unique DNA structure, somehow it is now the government's responsibility to take care of that new life. In nearly all aspects of Americans' daily lives, the government is to blame when something doesn’t go the way Americans intended. The reliance on the government to provide everything only leads people into the cycles that they cannot escape from and justifies many horrendous acts, like the killing of 63 million unborn children in the womb.

If there is any question as to your personal opinion surrounding the Dobbs decision, there are three individuals that you need to research. Fannie Lou Hamer was a strong and well-spoken civil rights activist who deafened the rights of the unborn not to be slaughtered in the womb. Dr. Steve Hammond, a doctor who performed over 700 abortions, radically changed his position on abortion. And finally, Bernard Nathanson, a former leading doctor in the fight for legalized abortion, wrote The Hand of God.

After researching these three individuals, who all range from different periods in American history, backgrounds, socioeconomic standings, and educational backgrounds, if there is still a struggle for you, why? At all these levels, there is a life that wants to be given a chance to live, and out of the selfish nature that too many have, those children are mutilated in the womb.

bottom of page