Profile image

John Roberts

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

Tier 4 - Personhood Never

Contrary to popular belief, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is not pro-life and rejects the unborn child's right to life. Roberts therefore makes himself an enemy of the unborn child.

  • John Roberts Predictably Cast the Deciding Vote for Obamacare: Tier One pro-lifers back in 2005 wrote a John Roberts Press Release warning conservative leaders to oppose the confirmation of the radically pro-homosexual and pro-abortion liberal John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013 Roberts ignored California's statewide vote to uphold marriage as between a man and a woman and thereby effectively, forced homosexual marriage onto the most populous stae. The previous year, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote1 to uphold Obamacare. Thus Leslie Hanks' suppressed press release takes on greater historical and predictive significance. Principled pro-family activists had long sounded such warnings. Trying to drown out those warnings was the pro-life industry which sadly has long defended "exceptions," promoted child-killing regulations, and campaigned for pro-abortion politicians. For example, National RTL supported Arlen Specter who predictably was the deciding U.S. Senator who switched parties to pass Obamacare. Likewise, NRTL supported Justice John Roberts who predictably cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare. Many pro-lifers prefer to maintain the illusion that they are rooting for pro-life officials over the reality of knowing the truth. Those pro-lifers who prefer illusion can stop reading here. For the rest of you, please continue. And also, make sure to see the vitally important Pro-life Profile of Mitt Romney.
  • "Nothing in my personal views" would Prevent me from Upholding Roe: Concerning upholding judicial precedent on abortion, Roberts said, in his 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, "There's nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedent of the court faithfully under the principles of stare decisis."2 Although many pro-life organizations and conservatives are convinced Roberts was being as vague as possible to secure his nomination, the comment reveals Roberts believes court tradition, no matter how abhorrent the ruling, may take priority over upholding the right to life, which our Founders recognized were endowed by the Creator. Like fellow justice Antonin Scalia, Roberts appears to believe God's laws and morality should be excluded from any court decisions on abortion.
  • Roe Settled as Court Precedent: Roberts stated that the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion was "settled as a precedent."3 At the Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts responding to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spectator said of Roe, "It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“4 Roberts reasoned "I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent....It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision [like Roe v Wade] was wrongly decided."5 Roberts, however, in 2010, said that precedent could be overturned: “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right. Stare decisis is not an end in itself.”6 Whether Roe was decided correctly based on Roberts' views on how the Constitution should be interpreted and whether the unborn have  a God-given right to life, however, are two very different things.
  • Believes State Can Create a Right to Assisted Suicide: In an interview in 1997 with the PBS news program, "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer," commenting on a Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide, Roberts said that a right to assisted suicide could be created by the people through the legislature. "The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their state legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions," Roberts explained. "That's an important right." 7 States have no right to trump God's enduring command, Do not kill the innocent. And when applying that comment to abortion, it becomes obvious that Roberts, like Scalia, believes the states can create a right to an abortion and that the unborn do not have a God-given or Constitutional right to life.
  • Abortionists may use "less shocking" Methods to Kill Unborn: In 2007, chief justice Roberts, agreed with the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart, a ruling that upheld Nebraska's ban on a partial-birth procedure but legally defined other ways for abortionists to perform late-term abortions. Roberts concurred with the opinion written by fellow justice, Anthony Kennedy, that said in page 30 of the ruling: "The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand." 8 According to the ruling, one praised by most pro-life organizations, killing unborn children, even viable, fully-formed ones, isn't wrong, only the method of killing them is wrong. The ruling goes on to give abortionists advice on how to kill children more humanely so they won't violate the law. It allows abortionists to  to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him. The ruling then  builds upon the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which it repeatedly up­holds as remaining legal, stating (p. 21) that "D&E will often involve a physician pulling a 'substantial portion' of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the [birth canal] prior to the death of the fetus." Then, the Roberts majority ruled that (p. 22) "the removal of a small portion ['say, an arm or leg'] of the fetus is not prohibited" and that's after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).9 Roberts and the majority go on in the ruling to advice abortionists to conceal the details of how a child is to be killed from the woman undergoing the prodedure (p. 29): "some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used... Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety... become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue."10As a result of the Gonzales v. Carhart  ruling, the Roberts-led court could be considered the most hostile yet to a right to life for the unborn.

See the ARTL documentation at

See the ARTL documentation at


John Roberts cast the deciding vote to uphold Obamacare. Further, in spite of the carnage of the Roe v. Wade opinion spilling enough blood daily to fill swimming pools, and with that beautiful unborn child, somewhere, dismembered just a moment ago, and without fear of God, John Roberts obfuscates that overturning Roe would be "a jolt to the system." Freeing human beings unjustly kidnapped as slaves, and liberating Jews from camps, would be a jolt also. This is the language of moral relativism that leads to widespread destruction of innocent human life. Roberts' legal positivist commitment to process trumps right and wrong and God's enduring command, Do not murder. Despite Roberts' tolerance of child killing and other liberal actions, James Dobson, National Right To Life, and other pro-family leaders, tragically endorsed him, while the Tier 1 pro-lifer leaders like Colorado RTL's Leslie Hanks was warning Christian leaders to oppose his nomination. Responsibility for his predictably upholding Obamacare is added to the bloodguilt for the killings John Roberts continues to support.