SAVE OUR FETUSES

The United States Supreme Court is about to enlarge law and impose new procedures and protections in every state by going beyond the limits of Article III of the Constitution, It is totally brand new law, presented without restraint and uncontrolled. Currently, fetuses are treated horribly; the cruel, harsh state laws work against unborn human beings can be changed with the flick of a pen. State legislatures can huba-huba, chop-chop, or the U.S. Supremes will do it piecemeal in an attempt to bring another nine months of life to the human race. Life expectancy will increase. But fetuses need legal standing, so fetuses can instantly protect themselves throughout their status until birth. Once a fetus is born such protections end. Everyone knows babies are like the rest of us and have to take their chances on the globe.

In the meantime without a change of statutes, fetuses suffer from discrimination in the most mean, base, vile ways, yet no state has gone whole hog to protect them. No federal court will interfere with the slightest changes any state wants to make. Again, there is no political will to protect fetuses. Following are examples of fetus abuse in all the states.

I. If a mother with a fetus is emotionally injured but has no physical injury, no one cares about the fetus. Yet, when the mother suffers emotional injury, the fetus also suffers. more intensely; a fetus, a young human being, is more vulnerable and frail – scars from the womb last a lifetime. These sorts of situations arise when emotional distress flows from many acts – intentional infliction of emotional distress, breaches of fiduciary duties, fraud and deceit cases, breaches of privacy (e.g.concealed or hidden cameras), attacks on pets, destruction of personal property, etc. Law suits should allow fetuses to recover for themselves regardless of whether the mother sues.

II. All of paragraph is included here. When a mother is also physically injured, recovery of damages should be allowed to the fetus. For instance, assaults and batteries; car crashes whether deliberate or negligent; drunk driving, stuff falling from the sky including flying craft and plunging sky divers; being non-vaccinated; gun shot wounds; drug usage; whiskey drinking; over medication from pharmacies or from the street; spouse beating; boyfriend fights; smash and grabs. If any of these mishaps occur when the fetus is in the womb, the fetus alone should recover damages against wrong-doers, bad guys, perpetrators, cold-blooded felons and anyone else who does not care whether the fetus is hurt. Some of these actions involve crimes, and obviously the fetus is a victim of the unsettled society following crime.

III. Negligence is a big field in civil law, and on its own a fetus should recover damages on its own if the host, the mother with fetus is so affected. This includes falling, slip and falls, missteps, lack of good health, exercising excessively or not enough, smoking, sucking and inhaling reefers, workplace accidents; causing a miscarriage; not having enough folic acid; failure to get proper pre-natal care; medical malpractice; and suits against insurance companies who refuse to pay promptly. (Having an insurance company refuse to pay when the policy is paid up, is a deliberate act and causes hurt and damages.)

IV. And the fetus, being a recognizable human being, should be allowed to sue the mother who carried him to birth – affirm or disavow her. With advances in genetics and our understanding of the tiny, wee and pee, itsy-bitsy world of things, a fetus should be able to sue for bad genes: Too tall; too short; tends to fat up; has no brains or has a weak mind; inherited mental illnesses; needs plastic surgery in a decade; is not quick enough to be in professional sports. These are legitimate issues arising when allowing fetuses to think!

V. At least one other category should be mentioned. Commerce. Fetuses should pay their own way from conception – pay taxes, income and otherwise. And fetuses should be allowed to enter into contracts, be represented by attorneys, be able to enforce contract rights, assignments and rights as third party beneficiaries, and be entitled to rights to privacy!

Paragraphs through should be enacted by states nationwide. These rights to sue are the birthright of every American fetus. There are no Constitutional issues when legislatures protect American fetuses, human beings who have rights in law, and are expressed the natural laws of liberties and freedoms, like those being claimed by rioters on January 6, 2021! Passing the legislation above might impose burdens on society. Bureaucracies might come into being just to monitor the state of fetuses in the United States. A Bureau of Fetus Immunity might become a necessary cabinet post.

However, there is resistance and no political will. Given the history of this country, Americans will break these laws often or over look them because nobody in America cares about unborn fetuses. The absence of laws protecting fetuses suggests what Americans really think about womb-livers – fetuses are what they have always been: Expectancies (not expectations). An expectancy, like winning the lottery, is something that might happen, or not.

That has been the public policy of all the individual states in the United States of America. Expectancies have made fetus law uncomplicated: Fetuses are expectancies and give them no more thought; they have no rights whatsoever. This status must change because if fetuses are to be protected, the public policy of the states must change. After all, public policy, reflected in the status of the current state statutes nationwide, is the will of the American people. To leave fetuses as expectancies in all the states, that is no public policy. It is neglect; it is careless; it is reckless; it is abusive. It allows fetuses to be murdered and injured in hundreds of ways with no penalty or compensation. If fetuses are to be protected, each state must act now!

The United States Supreme Court is on its way to the rescue – change a millennium of Anglo- American jurisprudence without a thought, without a analysis and without a spec of knowledge. The legal precedent of expectancies began when the Duke of Normandy, grabbed a girl from the field (a daughter of a leatherworker) and forcibly impregnated her with William. It was a complete surprise because no one expected that illegitimate child to grow up to become William the Conqueror of England of 1066 fame.Thereafter, that expectancy, William, was known as The Bastard. William also shows that expectancies can illegitimately grow up well. Moreover, it shows marriage and criminal laws might need changing to increase the gene pool of persons that society must tolerate to produce the best stock.

I hate to lose the present precedent about expectancies, through actions by an activist, unthinking, emotional court that does not respect tradition, customs and ancient laws. The floodgates of court involvement in fetus rights are about to open and become enforceable throughout the U.S.A. It’s big money for litigation lawyers and butt-sitting transactional guys. Chaos in the courts will bring a new world.

LIBERTIES, FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS

American liberties, freedoms and rights are not to be confused. Their interrelations and differences have not always been understood, especially in the Ante-bellum South. Since the Civil War and the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, Americans have used the Court to define actions and impose restrictions. However, today these guardians of the Constitution, the justices of the Supreme Court, are losing the game of this Republic, Nine to Zero.

Liberty is the general state a human being is in when standing on Earth, alone. It is an unmonitored state of existence where anyone can do whatever is pleasing. Liberty in the human mind means that everything in the imagination is 100 percent real. Move, talk, gesture – does anyone hear or see? It is liberty, and it is absolutely embedded in the hearts and minds of Americans. The government and other Americans usually don’t interfere with expressions of pure liberty. (see a short discussion in T.H. Breen, The Will of the People, (2019).

Freedoms originate in society, and impose restraints on liberty with rules: Freedom of Speech/ Press, Avoid libel, slander, incitement and privacy laws; Freedom of Religion, Limit extreme cult practices; Freedom of Assembly, No mob activity; Freedom to Petition the Government – No threats to life or property. Human beings claiming to exercise liberty have taken expansive views of freedoms, beyond restraints, laws and customs.

Americans have always had citizens ignoring limitations provided by freedoms. Individuals and groups moved into the Frontier to avoid the restraints. Within our lifetimes the “cultural” movements of the 1960s attacked and brought forward behaviors and challenges, changing what was tolerated and accepted. Some people were libertarians; other were libertines; individuals claimed the mantle of anarchy: “Do his own thing.” Left and Right movements today scream for freedoms, the protection of society. They say little about liberty. This is a moving area of law: To protect itself and the free society, restraints against liberty founded in freedoms are usually accepted, well known and frequently enforced.

During this Country’s founding, citizens knew such claims were wrong and perilous, full of “rebel spirits more dangerous and difficult to reduce.” One can not be licentious, “acting under sensual passions,” departures from civil norms. (See T.H. Breen, The Will of the People, last chapter.) Reason is necessary. Why? It is in the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Rights cannot be founded on individual passions, emotions and urges. Rights need objective criteria. One unenumerated right widely recognized by Americans, is the right to privacy, a work in progress. Circumstances arise, some being emotional and personal, and others are founded on bedrock principles of society. Yet all Americans claim this right and some want it extended. This Country, assessing and considering facts daily in piecemeal fashion, arrives at what is permissible.

An issue of interpretation arises. What is a Right? Madison in his Report of 1800 observed “technical phrases” from the common law could be used to define current usage, especially for persons seeking original views or original meanings of the Constitution. A Right goes beyond a license. It was in that category of endowments akin to privileges and immunities. They have been in Western society since the Middle Ages. Monopolies were rights once given to certain entities or individuals: The East India Company of the Boston Tea Party was such a monopoly. Rights can be modified and changed, as circumstances change. In Great Britain the monarchy had that power. In the United States the people are sovereign and should use processes and procedures set forth in the Constitution., whether legislatively, by amendment and frequently by the courts.

Originally, a right gave liberty to act exclusively within a specific area of land or commerce. It is not a freedom, but it was specific to the person(s) identified with the right. Concepts of Rights have broadened since 1789, but Rights do not always produce identifiable behaviors and circumstances which society can withstand. Rights are identified in the Constitution: Right against Self-Incrimination. (Fifth Amendment); Right to Bear Arms, (It is not, Freedom to Bear Arms.) (Second Amendment), which may not be as expansive a right as is proposed today. Society might be able to restrict and limit activities associated with rights – which are not freedoms – more broadly.

An American problem today is talking through one another, using the same words with such force and certainty to assert “plain meanings” which conflict and contradict: “I have my rights!” “I have freedoms!” Many of those Americans are claiming liberties. It is widely accepted that words and terms do not have fixed meanings, yet words and terms are becoming toys, playthings to toss around to keep opponents off balance. They are losing their significance. The Courts, including the Supremes, must act and decide according to which facts before them give rise to Liberties, Freedoms or Rights.