Overturn Roe V. Wade, A Beginning

It is like there is a vendetta against Parents, and the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment: the Freedom of Religion. The Rights in the Bill of Rights were not written and expressed to use them against each other. Each Right is Sovereign and unalienable. One Right does not overcome the other, or annihilate the other. Each Right stands on its own, as if a Person, not to be argued with or trifled with. Our Bill of Rights is a testament of the sturdiness of the Sovereignty of each right. Each Right and Person is only weakened and mocked when one Right is pitted against the other.

The "right to privacy" is not a Right, but an assumption, and made from what was thought to be the totality of the Spirit of our Bill (the Bill of Rights). The fallacy of the "privacy," however, was used as a wedge against Parents in the raising of their children. The Bill of Rights (not one of them!) cannot be used as a convenient "stick" to wedge away a minor child from the Parent/Parents/Guardians. A minor child has only the Rights of the Parents, as the Parents must have (Rights) in terms of Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, as well as school, health, shelter and any beliefs, codes and mores. You cannot strip Parent/Parents/Guardians of their Rights over their child/ren as a convenient way to prosecute an abortion. The stupidity of this is much characterized through the absolute legal guardianship of a parent HAVING to sign for a ridiculous ear piercing... versus having absolutely NO say when it comes to the incredible physical and psychological complexities of an abortion. An abortion is hard enough on an adult, but a child!? Leaving the Parent(s) out of this metric is child abuse. It is as if the government is saying that the only level of intelligence a Parent can conjure up is just the "simpleton" intelligence one must have to "okay"...an ear piercing. But a parent can't "handle"... an abortion?! Kids are not adoptive by the state through an arbitrary rule, and only "placed" in families by the state to "raise" them (on state terms).

There are families who have Religious beliefs. The ruling on the right to privacy rules against the Parents to have, as Sovereign in their lives, their Freedom of Religion, and the (clear) Expression thereof. We have already stated in the above material that one Right cannot be used against another in order to gain an advantage over the other. You cannot strip Sovereign Rights from the People and consider their Sovereignty nothing more than mediocrity, ignorance, and a toy for legislators and Justices to play with and rule against.

There is no precedence for stripping Rights away from individuals and call it, "...for the common good." This is no more than a human form of "eminent domain," taking the child from the parent and giving "it" to the state, yet without a trial of incompetency! There is no "common" in Sovereignty. We are all subject to laws, but our great and Sovereign Bill of Rights protects us from unjust laws and Remedies. Even criminals are treated with the respect of "Due Process" because of our Bill of Rights. Criminals get a trial. The Justices have wrongly and grossly assumed that Parents are "guilty" and not of the ability to tend to their minor child. There was absolutely no presumption of innocence for Parents as even criminals do get. Our Bill of Rights steps in the way of this presumption.

The only remedy congress and the Justices had against Parents was to invent a new "right;" ignore the Sovereign First Amendment and the Sovereignty of the Parent the Amendment protects, and override the Parents' authority over their own child, and take the child away; meaning, make the child a ward of the State in matters of abortion (only). They think Parents cannot possibly handle abortion! "Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" The Parents total 1st Amendment Rights are defeated (bullied away!), and their Religion is deemed as inferior to the state, and therefore ignorant in any approach "it" has to the minor child as compared to the "superiority" of the state. There IS NO precedent for this! The state considers that it has given the minor child equal rights against the Parents, hiding the fact of the child being a minor, who only has Rights under the Parents, completely disregarding the natural Sovereign Rights of the Person under the Bill of Rights. The only Persons we have here are the individual Rights of the Bill of Rights...and the Parents. The minor child is not a person by this definition and therefore only falls under the Sovereign Parent...NOT the state.

Note that when a minor child finally turns 18, that Child is only then considered "legal" (excepting the legal Remedy of being emancipated from the Parents at a minor age). Emancipation of a minor child is a legal ruling ONLY... after a legal HEARING of the specific case. Giving a minor child the "right to privacy" with no individual hearing by any court on the competency of the parents (Emancipation), but a blanket ruling of the U.S. Justices, is a violation of the Parents' Sovereignty, and of the Constitution's "Due Process" clause, and the Sovereignty of the Bill of Rights of the Parents. If there is no individual hearing, there can be no ruling. The Supreme Court can't just take a minor child from the parents because it wants to.

Our (Parents') Rights are completely ignored and we are erroneously considered inferior and incompetent. The only reason for the U.S. Justices' ruling is superiority of the state (Statism) over each individual Parent, except for ear piercings and ANY other operation. The "right to privacy" IS abortion (per se), and IS absolutely the only reason for the Justices' ruling. Parents are singled out as absolutely and incontestably inferior by the state to make ANY decision about abortion concerning their minor child. There is absolutely NO precedent for such an arbitrary ruling. The ruling of the "right to privacy" remedy for a minor child is, therefore, ficticious. The ruling is specious at best, and the arguments, by definition, specious. You cannot "just" rule en masse against parents. We parents, as a whole, have not been found incompetent by ANY court. We have definitively not been individually found incompetent, therefore the state cannot take away our child and deny our Constitutional Rights. Our minor children are not equal to us. They are not our peers. As minors, they are our children.

Neither are opinions that the Sovereignty of the Bill of Rights is inferior to public opinion. Neither is any "group" superior to Parents and the Bill of Rights. You cannot undermine the authority of Parents by superceding the Bill of Rights with a "superior" ruling caused by the willful antagonism of any group. There is no superior ruling to the Bill of Rights, foreign or domestic. The basic unit of our country is the Family. The Family is Sovereign by the sheer existence of the Bill of Rights. No court can remove a Family's Sovereignty without Due Process and proving individual justification for doing so, as a crime or a hearing; finding any one individual Family unfit to raise their child. You cannot extinguish Family Rights, or "append" a Family's Sovereignty, by taking away Sovereign Rights.

Courts should never accept cases which compromise the Sovereign Constitutional Rights of the Parents unless a crime has been committed by the individual Parents, and there is justification to amend toward a proper behavior by that court, a Parent to a minor child.

Parents, normally, have committed no crime when a minor child has become pregnant out of wedlock. Therefore, there can be no abridging of Parental rights in favor of the minor child. The Parent is not under a disability just because the minor child is pregnant. No court, therefore, has the right to remove Constitutional Sovereign Rights of Parent(s) over their minor child. No civilian group, nor governmental group, has the right to bring suit against Parents (singly or as a whole) to estop their Sovereign Parental Rights over their minor child without a crime being first committed, or an individual hearing, determining that the Parents are not mature enough, or haven't the wisdom enough, to effect their Parental authority over their minor child.

If there be such a thing as the "right to privacy," it shall exist first...to the Sovereign Parents and for the Parents remedy and benefit against ANY inferior "social" platform agenda of any civilian or governmental group, again, absent any special individual hearing of any one Family to determine a disability, if one might exist, or if a Family has committed a crime, remembering always that the presumption of innocence before guilt is precedent before a remedy is rendered as judgment.

If there is no individual hearing or crime, no court can arbitrarily remove a Parent's charge from their minor child. No hearing, no crime, therefore no conviction, sentence, nor negative finding, and NO Parental disability.

Let the "right to privacy" of any minor child against their Parents be overturned, and the Sovereign Constitutional Bill of Rights of the Parents be restored as permanent Superior Entity, Parent over minor child, in full, without any abridgement or abrogation by any court, other "person," or group, whatever.