While Biden strangles domestic energy, OPEC cuts petroleum production

By Royal Alexander/Opinion

In what sane world does a nation kill its own domestic energy industry—and national security—while at the same time it sells its emergency reserves to its enemies and then begs hostile actors and enemies of the U.S. to increase their oil production to fill this gap?

This past week—with the Biden Administration begging them not to—Saudi Arabia and its allies in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) voted to cut their oil production by 2 million barrels a day. These nations want higher prices on the global oil market and, as everyone knows—including the Climate Change Religionists in the Biden Administration—when you reduce the supply of a product, the price increases where demand is constant or increasing.

Unsurprisingly, oil prices have been rising since the announcement of the OPEC production cuts and those cuts will—once again—drive up the price of gas for American families already struggling with 40-year high Biden-inflation.

This is all just too stupid for words.

Let’s look back.

In Pres. Trump’s last month in office, Jan. 2021, America was producing more oil than it was consuming for the first time in 50 years and was exporting energy to the European Union. The Trump Administration had made America energy independent, meaning we not only were providing for our own national energy needs but, in fact, had become a net exporter of energy to other nations who are also vulnerable to Russian President Vladimir Putin through their dependence on Russian oil.

However, under the Biden Administration we’ve gone from energy independence back to dependence and are now reduced to begging Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, OPEC and perhaps even our archenemy, Iran, for oil.


Mostly to satisfy the green energy delusions of the Climate Change Religionists. It’s an embarrassing and untenable position for the world’s only superpower to be in.

As the Wall Street Journal previously observed, “in the year since the Biden Administration froze new drilling leases on 26% of federal land and more than a third of the nation’s resources in productivity, the U.S. has been falling further from energy independence, putting national security at risk.” (WSJ, Harold Hamm, 3-13-22).

The fundamental question remains: knowing as we do that energy security is national security, why would our government ever choose to be dependent on—and therefore vulnerable to—foreign nations who hate us for our energy needs?

Additionally, let’s not forget that we are also now selling our emergency oil capacity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to other nations including China.

Obviously, the point of having a national energy reserve is to support our country if an energy shortfall arises. That’s why we should be protecting our national stockpile and not selling our strategic crude reserves to the Chinese Communist Party. Otherwise, the reserve will be depleted when America is faced with an energy emergency. However, after six months of the Biden Administration’s misusing the emergency reserves in the SPR, our nation’s emergency oil reserve is at a 40-year low.

As U.S. Senator John Kennedy has stated “America’s strategic petroleum reserve protects our country during national emergencies. Selling off American oil to countries that hate us undermines the security that the oil reserve is supposed to deliver …”

In short, the fastest and easiest way to provide hope to millions of struggling Americans and drive the domestic energy market up is for President Biden to announce tomorrow that we are going to re-invigorate the U.S. oil and gas industry. This includes repealing all so-called “green” regulations prohibiting the production and development of, and investment in, American energy.

We are not going to be able to be free of fossil fuels for decades if not generations. Renewable energy sources can’t come anywhere near meeting America’s energy needs right now. In the meantime, the self-inflicted harm the Green leftists are doing to our country is increasing the leverage over us of Russia, China, and Iran, making us vulnerable and compromised.

This governmental malpractice and policy insanity must end now.

Again, in what sane world does a nation kill its own domestic energy industry—and national security—while at the same time it sells its emergency reserves to its enemies and then begs hostile actors and enemies of the U.S. to increase their oil production to fill this gap?

I believe in the Congressional Elections on November 8, Louisianians and all Americans will make their objections to this insanity heard loud and clear.

Biden border invasion coming to the blue states

By Royal Alexander/Opinion

Governors DeSantis and Abbott have made clear that they will continue to transport illegal immigrants to “progressive”’ Sanctuary States whose governors endorse blatant rollbacks of federal immigration law.

Ironically, some of America’s liberal blue states are beginning to get a taste of what “open borders” really means. It’s interesting to watch wealthy, liberal enclaves like Martha’s Vineyard begin to directly experience some of the “rich diversity” that the border states have suffered through with illegal aliens. States like Texas and Florida have been burdened with the enormous financial and social costs of a flood of illegals over our Southern border. Now, every state is a “border” state.

What has happened?

In recent weeks, Florida governor Ron DeSantis and Texas governor Greg Abbott have bussed or flown groups of illegals to liberal “sanctuary” states and cities. Now these moralizing blue states will be forced to put their money where their mouths are or be exposed as phonies.

So far, President Obama and numerous other prominent Democrat inhabitants of Martha’s Vineyard have not responded to media inquiries regarding whether they will open up their palatial estates to provide shelter, comfort, food, and love to the Venezuelan and Colombian immigrants from Florida whose cause they champion when it does not personally and adversely impact them.

Gov. Abbott has transported illegals from Texas to the steps of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. In so doing, he stated “we are sending them to the U.S. Capitol where the Biden Administration will be able to more immediately address the needs of the people they are allowing to come across our border.”

Gov. DeSantis sent two planes full of illegals to Martha’s Vineyard Airport in Massachusetts. His office stated “yes, Florida can confirm the two planes of illegal immigrants that arrived in Martha’s Vineyard today were part of the state’s relocation program to transport illegal immigrants to sanctuary destinations.”

DeSantis further stated that “states like Massachusetts, New York and California will better facilitate the care of these individuals who they have invited into our country by incentivizing illegal immigration through their designation as ‘sanctuary states’ and support for the Biden Administration’s open border policies.”


Martha’s Vineyard is famously known as a playground of rich “progressives,” including former President Barack Obama, who bought a multi-million dollar home there in 2019. The thought that this secure, super white, super rich community removed from the harmful impact of the Leftist policies they support would suddenly be face to face with the issue of illegals and the drugs (fentanyl is killing hundreds of Americans daily), theft, crime, terrorists, and human trafficking that accompany them, seems only fair.

We know Americans are unquestionably kind, generous and loving people but we are allowed to point out that these individuals are in our country illegally, and that our veterans and all Americans must come before illegals.

We are also allowed to point out that Americans are ‘Dreamers’ too, and that every sovereign nation has an inviolable right to determine who comes within its borders. Our nation simply cannot be the home of every individual in the world who wants to sneak across our border.

Our government also cannot be allowed to direct and support the breaking of federal immigration law. The result of this treachery is that the culture and character of our nation is being permanently altered by those illegally being placed into our country.

This is really the point.

After almost completely stopping the flow of illegals during the Trump Administration we are now witnessing the destructive effects of Biden’s exactly-reversed policy decisions.

What about public health and public safety concerns? What about the China Virus fears we’ve been suffocated with for over 2 years that have greatly restricted the personal and economic liberty of millions of Americans? There are still places in the U.S. that American citizens cannot go without a vaccine card and a mask. Yet, we allow unmasked un-vaxed, unknown and unvetted individuals numbering millions to violate our laws and become potentially super-spreaders in our communities?

This is a betrayal of us by our government.

Governors DeSantis and Abbott are engaged in this desperate pushback because our federal government—whose core constitutional responsibility is to control and protect our borders—simply refuses to do its duty in the hopes of gaining through this illegality a larger Democrat voting base.

This must stop, and in the November midterms, we must ensure that it does stop.


‘Little Demon’ only the latest smut to emerge from our cultural cesspool

By Royal Alexander/Opinion

“The Devil’s cleverest wile (trick) is to convince us that he doesn’t exist.” Charles Baudelaire

U.S. Rep Mike Johnson this week correctly rebuked the FX animation “Little Demon” as being a dangerous influence on children. He stated that “this (American) culture has become dark and desensitized” and this so-called piece of entertainment is only the latest example.

Johnson went on to describe the show as an attack against the “hearts and minds of our kids” and pointed out the inevitable conclusion that “Disney and FX have decided to embrace and market what is clearly evil.”

Little Demon began FX’s streaming on August 25 and stars Aubrey Plaza as the mother to the anti-Christ and Danny Devito as Satan, who together bear a daughter but have different desires for that child’s upbringing, according to a description on the show’s official webpage.

“Thirteen years after being impregnated by Satan, a reluctant mother, Laura, and her Antichrist daughter, Chrissy, attempt to live an ordinary life in Delaware, but are constantly thwarted by monstrous forces, including Satan, who yearns for custody of his daughter’s soul,” the program explains.

Actress Lucy DeVito, who portrays the antichrist daughter and is Danny DeVito’s actual daughter, states “I love that we are normalizing paganism,” Lucy DeVito said. “Laura is a pagan. She’s a witch. She’s jacked.”

Let’s be clear about what’s at issue here. We are not talking about targeting adult audiences in such a way that “Little Demon” could be characterized as satire for the purpose of entertainment.

No, the target of this programming—and its dark and recklessly cavalier portrayal of the devil—are innocent, impressionable children. That’s demented.

What other similar examples are there?

My brother, attorney Christopher Alexander, of Louisiana Citizen Advocacy Group (LACAG), has recently written of an ongoing episode in Livingston Parish involving a confused librarian, a concerned parent, taxpayer money, and smut in the children’s section of a library paid for by Louisiana citizens.

What are the facts in the Livingston Parish matter?

Ryan Thames is a resident of Livingston Parish and the father of two girls, ages 13 and 5. Thames had the “nerve” to publicly protest the placement of sexually explicit books located in the children’s section of a public library. His offense was to request that library personnel simply move the objectionable material to another part of the library, out of the reach of children. Samples of the books at issue, which include prepubescent themes such as anal sex, butt plugs, masturbation, sex toys for “bonus fun,” and the proper use of sex lube, complete with graphic illustrations.

Again, this cannot be misconstrued as merely “entertainment.” Obviously, many users of a public library—particularly the children’s section of a public library—are children. In any other setting, an adult who provided such sexually explicit, ‘grooming’ material to another parent’s child could potentially be arrested.

What else?

Drag Queen Story Hour at public libraries.

Cropping up in different parts of the country—including in Lafayette, Louisiana—are men dressed provocatively in drag as women who read nursery rhymes to young children, often in a public library. Some of the sponsors of Drag Queen Story Hour have stated that their purpose is to indoctrinate children about a “gender fluid” way of life.

It’s clearly dangerous and unhealthy for children to be exposed to gender confusion during their moral formation, at their most impressionable. And this is not harmless, victimless “fun”: in Houston, a participating “queen” turned out to be a registered child sex offender convicted of abusing an 8-year-old.

This is, again, a targeted effort to create doubt in the minds of young children at the very time they should be affirmed and reassured about who they innately are, the ultimate goal being to create uncertainty, making children more likely to question their sexuality or gender at a later age.

Again, this is not some bawdy, risque form of entertainment for adults. It is a pre-meditated effort to specifically target innocent, vulnerable children.

I share these examples so parents know what their children are being exposed to in public schools and libraries with taxpayer dollars.

There is nothing more powerful than a passionate parent or concerned citizen filled with righteous indignation raising these issues in a school board meeting or other public setting.

I salute them. Their valiant efforts to protect children from this filth will ensure our ‘best hope for the future’ of America.

Reminder: Louisiana law provides strong right of self-defense against car jackings, other crimes

By Royal Alexander/Opinion

In view of the increasing number of carjackings in Shreveport-Bossier—as well as the uptick in those occurring in Baton Rouge and New Orleans—it is worth revisiting the law that provides for the right of self-defense if citizens of Louisiana are attacked while in our vehicles, businesses, or in our homes.

Louisiana Revised Statute 14:20 provides for the definition and elements of Justifiable Homicide (killing).

This statute states that a “homicide is justifiable” when committed in self-defense by an individual who reasonably believes that they are in imminent danger of losing their life or receiving great bodily harm and that, therefore, … the killing is necessary to save the individual from that danger. (Emphasis added).

The statute also requires that “the circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person” such that the individual would face serious danger to their own life or person without the act of self-defense.

However, this deadly force may only be used by someone who is legally inside a given dwelling, place of business or motor vehicle against someone who is making an illegal entry.

That seems simple enough. However, there is another provision in the statute that further strengthens the right of the victims to defend themselves with deadly force.

The statute then states that in a dangerous, violent situation like those occurring frequently across our cities and state “ … there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of deadly force was necessary” to prevent the illegal entry or to compel the criminal intruder to leave. (Emphasis added).

This presumption is very important—as are all legal presumptions—and essential to creating an effective, durable right of self-defense.

Why? Because this presumption makes far easier the victim’s defense against a murder charge by providing the “benefit of the doubt” to the victim that they were justified in using deadly force in one of these dangerous circumstances—when the attack occurs inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

The statute also specifically provides that innocent, law-abiding citizens who are in a place that they legally have a right to be, have “no duty to retreat before using deadly force” and may “stand his or her ground” and “meet force with force.”

In summary, the smaller point is that this statute is simply the recognition by our state legislature that violent crimes frequently occur and that the right of the innocent victim to protect and defend themselves is a sacred one.

The larger point is that while our U.S. Constitution does not contain the words “self-defense,” that right is still unquestionably implied by and provided for in the 2nd Amendment—the individual right to keep and bear arms—as well as flowing from the philosophical principle that the right of self-defense is a natural right that derives from the sovereignty and inherent dignity of the individual.

The right of self-defense from crime—as well as from a tyrannical government—is the fundamental purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It is not a right granted by government—only preserved by it—and therefore it is a right that government cannot constitutionally take away.

It follows then that a natural right must flow from natural law—which philosopher John Locke called “laws of nature” — God’s law, and, as such, these natural rights exist outside of, and are clearly distinguishable from positive law, which refers to ordinances, regulations and statutes that have been enacted by a legislature, court, or other human lawmaking entity.

These natural rights are what Thomas Jefferson meant when he stated in the Declaration of Independence that “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 these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” – rights to which, according to Jefferson, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.”

The Right to Life through self-defense is one of the clearest manifestations of our intrinsic natural rights, and through this statute the Louisiana Legislature has provided its citizens with a powerful method by which to exercise it.

Biden administration sells U.S. emergency oil to China while strangling American domestic energy industry

By Royal Alexander/Opinion

While the Biden Administration has continued to strangle U.S. energy production—creating painfully high gas and diesel prices at the pump—incredibly, the Administration is also now selling America’s emergency oil reserves to the Chinese.

At a time of skyrocketing inflation and record gas prices the Biden Administration won’t allow broad energy production in the U.S., which is punishing Americans at the pump, but in addition to that defect we are now selling our emergency crude oil reserves to our archenemy, China, and other nations.

It has been reported that nearly 1 million barrels of oil released from our nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve—for the stated purpose of reducing Americans’ pain at the pump, according to our addled president—has actually been sold to a Chinese state-owned energy conglomerate, Sinopec.

In a plot twist worthy of a Hollywood thriller, this conglomerate has ties to the President’s son, Hunter Biden, through an investment firm the disgraced younger Biden co-founded. The firm held a $1.7 billion stake in Sinopec Marketing which, of course, raises questions about why oil from our national emergency reserve is being shipped out of the U.S. and sent to China.

But it also raises the question: Who besides China is benefiting from these sales?

“Follow the money” instructed Deep Throat of Watergate fame. (I’ll address the Hunter Biden connection on another day).

On first review, it seems confusing and ambiguous.

But then, when the contents of the Hunter Biden ‘laptop from Hell’ are considered—and that the Biden Crime Family, including ‘the Big Guy,’ benefitted to the tune of millions of dollars from the Chinese government—the picture becomes clear and logical. (Miranda Devine; NY Post).

Talk about indefensible.

Let’s really understand what is happening here.

On the one hand, due to the green energy delusions of the climate change religionists, the Biden Administration has largely shut down American energy production, beginning on the first day of this Administration. This has resulted in our domestic production and refining capacity being reduced by more than a million barrels of oil per day. On the other hand, we are also now selling our emergency capacity to other nations including China.

This all means we have gone from being a net exporter of energy under President Trump to a country reduced to begging our enemy, Venezuela, and the nation Biden called a pariah state, Saudi Arabia—to drill more and sell us their excess production. Also, the disastrous pending nuclear deal with Iran is sought in part in order to bring millions of barrels of Iranian oil into the international market.

Obviously, the point of having a national energy reserve is to support our country if an energy shortfall arises. That’s why we must protect our national stockpile and not sell our strategic crude reserves to the Chinese Communist Party, especially when our government tells us that our emergency oil reserves are being depleted for the benefit of Americans. Otherwise, the reserve will be depleted when America is faced with an energy emergency.

As U.S. Senator John Kennedy has stated “America’s strategic petroleum reserve protects our country during national emergencies. Selling off American oil to countries that hate us undermines the security that the oil reserve is supposed to deliver …”

The very best solution to all of this—and one that would cause the U.S. economy to explode with growth—would be for the Biden Administration to quickly take steps to turn on American energy production.

This would include enacting the American Energy Independence Act which would reverse the war on U.S. domestic energy production by permitting widespread drilling on federal lands and waters while also approving the Keystone XL pipeline, freeing up U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) exports and generally fast-tracking energy and mineral development.

In short, the fastest and easiest way to provide hope to millions of struggling Americans and drive the domestic energy market up is for President Biden to announce tomorrow that we are going to reopen and re-invigorate the U.S. oil and gas industry. This includes repealing all so-called “green” regulations prohibiting the production and development of, and investment in, American energy.

This must happen soon. In what sane world does a nation kill its own energy industry while at the same time sell its emergency reserves to our enemies? It’s clear that Pres. Biden is mentally and morally unfit to hold the most powerful office in the world.

U.S. Supreme Court attempts to re-establish our constitutional republic

Opinion/By ROYAL ALEXANDER, Contributing Writer

Recall that at the time of drafting our Constitution, our nation had just come out of a brutal war for its independence and our leaders sought to establish a fundamentally different kind of government, one based upon self-government.

Our Framers sought to balance individual liberty, which they had foremost in mind, and social order as they drafted the document grounded in this principle of self-government.

So, the Founders devised a system in which the states and the federal government were joint sovereigns sharing power. However, in this arrangement they demanded that the new constitution limit the national government to specific, express, enumerated powers which they listed with great specificity, with all other power reserved to the states and the people. Said another way, the states—as the legitimate repositors of power—agreed to a voluntary transfer of enumerated powers from the states to the federal government.

Secondly, they created a three-part federal government, Legislative, Executive and Judicial, that would remain that way based upon a delicate system of checks and balances. This is our Separation of Powers which simply means that our three branches of government would be required to “stay in their own lanes” such that one branch could no more make itself more powerful at the expense of another branch than they could give their constitutional authority away to another branch.

And, equally importantly, the federal government was required to stay out of the lanes of the states.

With this in mind let’s review some recent Supreme Court decisions.

Roe v. Wade was a violation of both states’ rights and separation of powers. It was reversed because the 1973 Roe Court illegitimately decided to “federalize” the abortion issue and take that profound moral policy decision away from the 50 states in whom it is entrusted. It’s also a violation of the Separation of Powers because the Supreme Court went “outside of its lane,” acting as a “super legislature.” In so doing, the Roe Court also disregarded its fundamental duty to interpret the law—not make the law—by magically “finding” a right to abortion in the Constitution.

Let’s review another violation of the Separation of Powers. In a recent case involving the Environmental Protection Agency the Court ruled in such a way that signals a broad reining in of the massive federal administrative state. The case involved climate change regulation but the principle the Court laid down can be applied to all the federal agencies. The issue was whether the EPA could use a little-known provision of a major federal statute to essentially redesign our national electric grid.

The Court relied on a legal doctrine which requires courts to be skeptical, if not suspicious, when agencies try to claim a previously unidentified power in a long existing statute; like saying “this statute is 50 years old, but the EPA somehow just discovered this new power in it which it’s now using to massively expand its own authority?” The Court held that the EPA had gone too far and was acting as a legislative body (at the whim of unelected bureaucrats) even though its only legitimate role is to administer laws passed by Congress.

Two final cases involve rights that are actually in the Constitution.

In a gun rights case, the Court struck down a New York law that prohibited its citizens from possessing a handgun on their person outside of the home unless they proved a “special need” to do so. The Court said “no” holding that “the Second … Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” adding that “individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right.”

Finally, a case involving free exercise of religion and the “praying football coach” who was fired from his job at a public high school after he briefly knelt after games to offer a prayer of thanks. The Court ruled in his favor finding that the coach had never attempted to coerce his players to join him, or conditioned playing time based upon player participation in the prayer. Rather, in firing the coach the school district had unconstitutionally punished him “for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.”

The Left is furious because it realizes that if it can no longer rely on federal courts to accomplish its policy goals it will now have to accomplish them in the constitutional way—by building public consensus and then passing a bill through Congress.

Supreme Court Strikes Several Blows for Liberty

By Royal Alexander

Included in the historic and dizzying litany of U.S. Supreme Court decisions the last ten days are rulings on 2nd Amendment rights and free exercise of religion.

These decisions, when analyzed in conjunction with landmark pro-democracy decisions defending the rights ‘of the people’ through their elected representatives to choose to protect pre-born human life and requiring that the U.S. Congress determine major environmental policy—not unelected bureaucrats unaccountable to the people—the Supreme Court has returned “We the People” to a constitutional republic and a ‘government by consent of the governed.’

Let’s begin with the 2nd Amendment case.

The Supreme Court held that New York’s handgun licensing regime was unconstitutional. Why? Because NY was forcing its citizens who wished to apply for and receive a permit to carry a handgun to prove that they had “proper cause” to carry the handgun and that the applicant had demonstrated a “special need for self-defense.”

The Supreme Court flatly said “no.” What was the Court’s reasoning?

The Court refused to leave in the hands of NY state bureaucrats the discretion to determine to grant or disallow a citizen’s 2nd Amendment right ‘to keep and bear arms’ based on what the bureaucrat deems to qualify as a “special need” for self-defense.

The Court held that “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” The Court underscored this point adding that “individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right.”

Why is this important? At a time when the Lunatic Left are defunding and disrespecting the police, and police coverage and response times are negatively impacted; when bail to keep dangerous criminals off the streets is being reduced and ended in many jurisdictions; and prisons are being emptied of lethal threats to society; this Supreme Court decision reaffirms the principle that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

The cry for “gun control” after these mass shootings (and these shootings are primarily a heart problem not a gun problem) is an easy solution for politicians with a desire to “do something,” but it is deeply misplaced. What we need is criminal control.

Law-abiding gun owners everywhere already obey our gun laws but criminals—by their nature—are never going to comply. The result is that the good guys are disarmed while the bad guys are, free and unopposed, able to inflict their violence and death on the innocent. This is societal insanity.

The second important Supreme Court decision I address today is one involving free exercise of religion and the “praying football coach.”

What are the facts? Coach Joseph Kennedy was fired from his job as a high school football coach in the Bremerton School District after he knelt at midfield after games to offer a quiet, personal prayer of thanks. The high school is a public high school—making him a government employee—in Washington state.

The Bremerton School District argued that as an employee at work Coach Kennedy’s prayer was “state speech” and thereby violated the Constitution’s promise of no government “establishment of religion.” However, the Supreme Court held that in firing Coach Kennedy it had unconstitutionally punished him “for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance” after each game.

The Court held that Coach Kennedy’s ritual after football games is private conduct. The Court noted that Coach Kennedy never attempted to pressure or coerce his players or spectators to join him. He had also never offered his prayers while acting within the scope of his duties as a coach or conditioned playing time based upon participation in his prayer. He merely engaged, for approximately 3o seconds after each game, in his own brief and personal religious observance.

The Court reasoned that finding this private conduct unconstitutional would be to discriminate against religion. That’s right, of course, because as any fair reading of American history makes clear, what the Framers of our Constitution were concerned about was the establishment of a state religion of the kind they fled when the Pilgrims came to America in the first place. That is why the Framers would not recognize the hostility to religion that is so common in America today.

For citizen patriots loyal to our Constitution, these last 10 days have marked a thrilling return to constitutional principles, to the rubric that the responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the law, not make it.

After Roe Reversal, Abortion Issue Returns to the People

By Royal Alexander

In a landmark 6-3 decision this past week, the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization reversed and overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which purported to “find” a constitutional right to abortion in the 14th Amendment.

How should we view this Supreme Court decision?

Well, putting aside the moral implications of abortion—which are profound—and looking at Roe strictly as a matter of constitutional law, it was always on shaky legal ground.


Because our Constitution mandates that our federal government be one of specific, enumerated powers and abortion is not one of them; And because, while the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment may allow a right to privacy within a zone of privacy, that zone cannot credibly be construed to include the “right” to terminate the life of a genetically distinct unborn baby.

The harsh national response we are seeing from critics of the reversal of Roe includes the assertion that the Court is exercising power it doesn’t have. This is, respectfully, exactly backwards. As Justice Byron White wrote in dissent (Justice William Rehnquist was the other dissenter) in the 1973 Roe opinion, the Roe decision was an “exercise of raw judicial power”.

Why would Justice White have written that in his 1973 dissent from Roe?

Because the 1973 Roe Court claimed to “find” a constitutional right to abortion that is simply not in the Constitution. Let me say again that abortion can be found nowhere in the Constitution. Further, abortion had never been a part of American common law either.

As such, the 1973 Roe decision had “federalized” the issue of abortion and taken it away from all 50 states. The reversal of Roe last week was simply the correction of a grievous 49-year mistake that the Roe Court—with great judicial arrogance—had made. By taking the issue and preferences away from the states and the people and replacing it with the Roe Court’s own preferences on abortion, it had acted in a manner that was inappropriate, illegal, and unconstitutional. The role of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the law not to make it!

Rather, the Framers of our Constitution left profound moral and policy determinations like the abortion issue to the states and to the people because they wanted these weightiest of decisions to be made as locally as possible.

Someone made this comment to me since the Roe reversal. “So, what you are telling me is my rights are determined by geography; by where I live?” In simplest terms, the answer is “yes.”

Our constitutional scheme essentially sets up the 5o states as “incubators” of the policy ideas and choices of the people in that state. That is why states like Louisiana and Mississippi can chose to have no abortions while states like New York and California (which may even pay for the procedure) have such liberal abortion laws that the child may be aborted up until the moment of birth—and even after, when the unborn child is allowed to die on the table if the abortion was unsuccessful.

To disagree with this outcome is to simply disagree with our constitutional form of government. Our Framers painstakingly hammered out what powers would be directly and expressly granted to the federal government with all the rest remaining with the states and the people.

As the 10th Amendment makes clear the large majority of policy determinations lie with the states. Period. Again, the only powers granted to the federal government are express, specific, and enumerated.

Now, the issue of abortion will return to and be decided by the people and their representatives in each state where, in our constitutional scheme, it belongs.