It’s quite interesting how Democrats, abortion rights activists, some conservatives who choose to use the term pro-choice (abortion code); and the flying chimps in the national media, are so quick to cite a violation of the Constitution when the topic is abortion.

Indeed, Louis Mollica’s November 26 letter speaks of his belief that originalism was cast aside when the United States Supreme Court amended the already disastrous decision in Roe v. Wade, speaks precisely on this point. As Mollica demonstrates that he is cut off from the fabric of the Abortion Horde, he simply lets out a theory without hesitation or understanding.

In this theory, the legal text (s) and the Constitution itself must be used to determine the “laws of the land.” (for my part, I never found that “to the right” murder innocent people anywhere in the Constitution).

Nevertheless, child murderers would have us believe that abortion is a “fundamental right.”

However, a close examination of the genesis of open access abortion contradicts this premise. Indeed, the facts clearly show it “to the right” born out of nothing more than a shell game of the Supreme Court and, unsurprisingly, the sheer selfishness of its members

In an earlier Roe case, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Judge William O. Douglas was unable to find a comprehensive right to privacy in the Constitution.

But, alas, he tapped his inner explorer and discovered a “penumbra” was hidden in the Bill of Rights.

Following this unprecedented discovery, Justice Douglas determined that there was “emanations,” which indicated an extra-constitutional provision “Confidentiality zone”, which inexplicably turned into a “Right to privacy” by word substitution.

This astonishing discovery is extremely astonishing, because at the time, this principle was apparently ignored by the jurists for more than 150 years.

Unfortunately, by the time Roe went to the United States Supreme Court, there was a litany of cases that concurring justices could use, in addition to their speaking skills, to determine the right to the abortion.

It is time that this chaotic practice of abortion on demand was consigned to the dustbin of history; be removed from the control of the federal government; and above all, let states decide what they want for their citizens.

And for these reasons, but especially the slaughter of unborn children, the state of Texas must prevail in the case of Whole Woman’s Health et al. vs. Austin Reeve Jackson, judge, et al.

William E. Straesser

Altoona