Supreme Court's voting rights decision shows Roe should be overturned

Casey Mattox
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  And if we can recognize that outdated facts ought not apply to our voting laws, can we not also realize that other outdated facts should not be used to justify killing our children?

The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot rely upon outdated, inaccurate facts in creating law for the nation.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.

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.