Dehumanizing Decisions of the United States
Supreme Court


Religious Freedom


Main Page


Last Update:  September 14, 2016 

Religious Freedom

  Human Family Research Center Viewpoint Article: Religious Freedom  The Hobby Lobby Case,
Raymond J. Adamek, Ph.D., member of the Human Family Research Center Advisory Board,
HFRC published 7/6/14
This article provides an overview of religious liberty in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act’s mandate regarding birth control and certain abortifacients. 
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (573 U.S. 2014)


  Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, 15 L. Ed, 1857
In this ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that slaves were not citizens of the United States and, therefore, could not expect any protection from the Federal Government or the courts. The opinion also stated that Congress had no authority to ban slavery from a Federal territory.
Related websites

  Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537,
This decision found that a Louisiana law requiring railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that State, to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, was constitutional. The law required providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations; and providing that no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them, on account [p538] of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong; and imposing fines or imprisonment upon passengers insisting on going into a coach or compartment other than the one set aside for the race to which he or she belongs; and conferring upon officers of the train power to refuse to carry on the train passengers refusing to occupy the coach or compartment assigned to them, and exempting the railway company from liability for such refusal. The Court found that these requirements were not in conflict with the provisions either of the 13th or 14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Related websites

  Korematsu v. the United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944
During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, declared that this law was constitutional and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights
Related websites


  Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200, 1927
The Court upheld a Virginia law which permitted the sterilization when a state official determines it “is for the best interests of the patients and of society.” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in writing the majority opinion of the Court, shared his opinion that: “"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
Related websites


Culture both affects and is affected by the law.  They are inextricably intertwined. One cannot tolerate violence and death without being affected.
The law is a teacher and becomes part of who we are as individuals and as a people. Roe’s implication that legal rights don’t always follow the
biological realities of human life and the Supreme Court’s deification of personal autonomy in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S 833 (1992),
have helped to form a culture in which this autonomy has become the only acceptable basis for human rights

Read More


Mother Teresa’s 1994 Message to the Supreme Court on Abortion
reprinted in Public Discourse, 9/5/16

Mother Teresa submitted this amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court to persuade them to overrule Roe v. Wade.   The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Roe three times since the original ruling in 1973.

  Abortion Ruling Ignored Medical Facts
Denise Mackura
The Cleveland Plain Dealer  7/10/16

This is a letter-to-the-editor published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer in response to the recent Supreme Court decision on abortion regulation

  Supreme Court Nominations and the Virtues of a Resolute Senate
Nathaniel Bruno
Public Discourse, March 17, 2016

The author reviews the constitutional issues presented by recent executive actions and the grounds for the United States Senate to refrain from taking any action to consider a new Supreme Court justice until after the election and inauguration of a new president.
This is a revised chart that shows that 80% of the American people will be unaffected immediately after Roe v. Wade is overruled because they live in one of the 39 states where abortion will remain legal after the overruling.

  News Release
New Study Reveals that Overturning Roe Will Not Impact Legality of Abortion in Most States

Human Family Research Center
January  21, 2016

The Human Family Research Center just completed a major study of state laws after Roe v. Wade is overruled. 
The map and chart demonstrate quite clearly that the predictions of vast disruption cannot be supported.  In fact,
abortion will be against the law in only 11 states post-Roe, representing only 20 per cent of the United States population. 
The number could be smaller if legal challenges are mounted in those states.  This means that the issue of abortion
will be returned to the people in the vast majority of states to finally let the people have their say about whether unborn
children should be protected.

Map of the United States showing where abortion will be legal when Roe v. Wade is overruled

Chart describing the status of the legality of abortion in each state after  Roe v. Wade is overruled.


New Perspective on Roe v. Wade,
Denise Mackura, President, Human Family Research Center,
The Cleveland Plain Dealer,
This editorial describes a route to developing a democratic resolution of the issue of the legality of abortion in America

  A Roe Primer
Paul Benjamin Linton
The Human Life Review
January 20. 2014
A review of the legal theories used in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and the future of abortion jurisprudence.

  Roe v. Wade, 210 U.S. 113 (1973)
The Supreme Court found that state criminal abortion statute that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The Court also found that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

  Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 192 (1973)
In the companion case to Roe, Doe v. Bolton, the Court defined the scope of the health exception, relying on its earlier opinion in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971): [T]he medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. Doe, 410 U.S. at 192


Abortion-Related Articles

State Abortion Prohibition Laws When Roe v. Wade is Overruled
April 201


Chart describing the status of the legality of abortion in each state after  Roe v. Wade is overruled.

April 2016
Current US Supreme  Court Justices' Positions on Roe v Wade
April 2016
No Relief for Pain Bills: A commentary on the Supreme Court refusal to review the constitutionality of an Arizona law prohibiting virtually all abortions
during and after the twentieth week of pregnancy .

Paul Benjamin Linton
The Human Family Research Center January 14, 2014
The Two Abortion Wars: State Battles Over Roe v. Wade
Editorial by Denise Mackura
published in The New York Times  January 29, 2011
The Legal Status of Abortion in the States if Roe v. Wade is Overruled
Paul Benjamin Linton, Esq.
May 2012   
Factors the Supreme Court Will Consider in Deciding to Overrule a Precedent
March  01,2012
(Liberal) Criticism of Roe
February 15, 2012
The "Casey" Standard
February 01, 2012
Roe v Wade 210 U.S. 113 (1973)
February 01, 2012
Roe v Wade Quiz
February 01, 2012


Roe v Wade Videos

Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade.

 Documents identified with this icon are in Portable Document Format (PDF) and require the Adobe Acrobat Reader


The Human Family Research Center
Dehumanizing Decisions of the United States Supreme Court