Why HD 91 is Ground Zero in the Fight for Texas

  

Why HD 91 is Ground Zero in the Fight for Texas

James Scott Trimm

 

The Paxton acquittal has created a great deal of energy in the grass roots against the Phelan Establishment RINOS, an energy which the media has characterized as a GoP civil war.  House District 91 is ground zero in this war on the Uniparty.

Why is House District 91 ground zero?  Because the HD 91 State Representative is Stephanie Klick, who was recently identified as one of Dade Phelan’s Dirty Dozen in the mini-documentary The Texas Heist.  Not only did Klick vote with 61 Democrats to impeach Ken Paxton, she was also one of only eleven Republicans to vote for taxpayer funding of Child Gender Modification Support and Referral programs.  And her Texans for Fiscal Responsibility rating has sunk to 49!  Klick is a committee chair and has used that position to kill several GoP priority bills in recent years.

Moreover, Klick's top two donors are Dade Phelan and the infamous TLR (Texans for Lawsuit Reform), which was closely linked to the effort to impeach Ken Paxton.  These two donors combined alone, donated a staggering $795,546.26 to Klick!  

House District 91 is also important, because it is located in Senate District 9 held by Kelly Hancock, who was one of only two Texas State Senators to vote with the Democrats to remove Paxton from office.  While Hancock is not up for reelection until 2026, he himself lives in HD91.  We need to oust Klick in 2024 to build a foundation on which to build, in order to defeat Hancock in 2026. 

Most importantly, HD91 is a competitive district.  Not all of Phelan’s Dirty Dozen are vulnerable, but Klick is very vulnerable.  She is challenged by true conservative David Lowe.  Lowe arose in the last election cycle from being an unknown, to dragging Klick to a run off and finally falling short by less than 800 votes, making this a very winnable election for David Lowe.

Additionally, there has recently been an anti-establishment grass roots uprising in North Richland Hills (all of which is located in HD91).  It is important to note that North Richland Hills is home to Hancock and Lowe.  In a recent city election, citizens of this city elected anti-establishment maverick Blake Vaughn to the City Council.  When the North Richland Hills City Manager had proposed a Tax Increase, Vaughn rallied the citizens against the rest of the council.  Nearly 500 citizens emailed the council and so many citizens showed up to the hearing to speak, that many had to watch from an overflow room on a monitor.  The result was that the City Council backed down and passed the “no new revenue rate” instead of the City Manager’s proposed rate.  So it appears that North Richland Hills is a city ready to take on a fight with the establishment. the prefect place from which to mount an offensive against the establishment.

The race for House District 91 has statewide implications, and conservatives throughout Texas should be paying close attention to this race. 

David Lowe is a grassroots candidate.  He needs your support to combat the huge RINO establishment donors.  You can donate to his campaign at his website at https://www.davidlowefortexas.com/

 

 

Stephanie Klick's Death Panels

Stephanie Klick's Death Panels
By
James Scott Trimm

 

 

Back 1999, The Texas Legislature unanimously passed the draconian Texas Advance Directives Act (TADA). Under TADA, when a doctor and a patient (or his/her surrogate) disagree about appropriate end-of-life treatment, the disagreement is taken before an ethics review committee.

TADA only provided a ten day period for the patient's family either to find another facility to accept the patient or to obtain a court injunction to extend their life. If no other facility will accept the patient within the period of time and the family is unable to obtain a court injunction, then the hospital is legally permitted to withdraw life sustaining-treatment from the patient, and simply let them die, regardless of their wishes, their living will, or the wishes of their family.  Folks, this is one of those “death panels” about you have been warned.  

I have blogged literally for years about the evils of these Texas Death Panels.  When opportunities to reform this act have presented themselves, Pojman’s Texas Alliance for Life has run interference.  For example in the 84^th Texas Legislative session (2015) Texas Alliance for Life actually supported House Bill 2351, which was supposed to be a bill to reform these death panels, but in reality this Bill only perpetuated the death panels.  

Texas Right to Life wrote about this bill (Which Pojman and TAL supported):

HB 2351 by Representative Patricia Harless (R-Spring) will also be heard today in the House Committee on State Affairs.  The stated purpose of HB 2351 is to reform hospital ethics committees (death panels), which currently hold unlimited power to remove medical treatment from patients after providing ten days notice to the patient or family.  Under the current Texas Advance Directives Act, hospitals may remove life-sustaining treatments including a ventilator, dialysis, food, and hydration from patients, even if the patient or their family has expressed a desire to continue such care and treatment.  Treatment can be withdrawn from any patient for any reason, including discrimination against a patient who is elderly, terminally ill, or disabled.

Rather than actually reforming the draconian ten-day law, HB 2351 instructs the hospital committees to write and circulate their own regulations about conflicts of interest for their own ethics committees about their own decisions on withdrawing treatment from patients.  HB 2351 also instructs facilities to write and implement policies for withdrawing treatment from patients with disabilities.  However, this section establishes yet another dangerous loophole through this provision by adding: “unless the disability is relevant in determining whether a medical or surgical intervention is medically appropriate.”  HB 2351 does not actually provide specific details about what the policies should be, just that hospitals should adopt policies on these topics.
(Committee to hear dangerous bills masquerading as Pro-Life, April 8, 2015)

In defending their silence on the Pro-Life issue of the life of Chris Dunn, Joe Pojman's Texas Alliance for Life (TAL) finally spoke.  On their Facebook page TAL wrote:

Many pro-life individuals have been gravely concerned about the tragic case of Mr. Chris Dunn, a 46-year-old man who was admitted into a Houston hospital in mid-October and was on a ventilator. Some media accounts and a pro-life organization misrepresented the situation as one in which the hospital intended to kill Mr. Dunn by removing the respirator that was considered necessary to sustain Mr. Dunn's life. The claims were made that the hospital had judged that Mr. Dunn's life was not worth living….

To help correct the record and to explain the ethical issues involved with end-of-life care, Dr. Beverly Nuckols, a family physician and board member of Texas Alliance for Life, and Deirdre Cooper, our public policy analyst, authored the following article on Public Discourse. We highly recommend every pro-lifer reads it [sic].

In defending Methodist Hospital’s Death Panel’s decision to discontinue life-sustaining treatment from Chris Dunn, Nuckols and Cooper wrote:

"It is entirely possible, even plausible, that the doctors—and Dunn’s father, in his role as surrogate—could have understood Dunn’s death as an unintended but foreseen side effect of a morally legitimate object. That object, by their own profession, was to stop the suffering caused by the treatment to sustain his life."

(Balancing the Rights of Patients and Doctors: Another Perspective on a Tragic Case; by  Deirdre Cooper and Beverly Nuckols )

That’s right, a TAL board member and the TAL public policy analyst just declared that "to stop the suffering caused by ... treatment to sustain ... life" is "a morally legitimate object."! 

In the 87th Legislative Session a bill was filed in the Texas House to end the Ten Day Rule with it's Death Panels, in Texas.  The Bill was HB2609 which was assigned to the Public Health Committee, chaired by Stephanie Klick.  Klick intentionally slow walked this bill, making sure that it "died in Calendars".  She held the bill 28 days before even giving it a hearing.  (By contrast she gave a hearing to HB2213 , a bill to protect exotic animals, on day nine). 

 

 

She then held the bill another two weeks before bringing the bill back up to the committee for a vote.  Even after that, she held the bill two more weeks on her desk, before walking it down the hall and submitting it to calendars.  After 68 days, Klick finally submitted the bill to calendars, knowing that by that point it would "die in calendars", and never reach the House Floor! Klick slow walked this bill do death, and guaranteed that death panels, like the one that took the life of Chris Dunn, would continue in Texas.

 

 

 

 

It is no surprise that in the following election cycle, Klick earned the endorsement of Texas Alliance for Life. 

 

This last session Klick authored and pushed thru her own bill (HB 3162), a bill which did not abolish death panels in Texas at all, but preserved them, merely extending the period before the death panel decision takes over, from ten days, to a mere twenty five days.  That's right, Klick's supposed "solution" was not to eliminate Death Panels in Texas, but to preserve them, and only add a mere fifteen days to the lives of their victims! And for this the establishment is already singing her praises!  Our thimble runneth over!

 

Texas still has death panels, and we can now thank Stephanie Klick for continuing to have Death Panels in Texas!  They are now Stephanie Klick's Death Panels.  

 

 

David Lowe Announces Run Against Klick for HD91

 

Today Conservative Champion David Lowe announced that he is running against RINO Stephanie Klick, for Texas House District 91.  David Lowe is a combat veteran, and well known conservative activist.  In the 2022 election, Lowe forced Klick into a runoff, and forced her RINO support mechanism to spend upwards of one million dollars, and engage in dirty tricks, just to manage a victory margin of a mere 789 votes.  

During the 88th Legislature, Klick earned official GOP condemnation by name in a resolution passed by the Tarrant County Republican Party, when she joined 61 Democrats to vote for an illegal impeachment of Texas Conservative Hero Ken Paxton:

 

 

In addition, RINO Klick, blocked all bills to protect children from gender modification in the 87th Legislative session, and voted in the 88th Legislative Session for Taxpayers to Fund "Support and Referral" for Child Gender Mods.   In fact, during her 2022 election campaign, while debating with conservative David Lowe, Klick actually referred to the gender modification of children as "a type of care"!!!!

In his announcement today, David Lowe stated:

I am announcing my candidacy... because Texans keep voting right, but getting left... The need for a bulldog in the legislatures, who is willing to take on the most politicians, has never been greater|.  During my previous campaign, I was ferociously attacked but never wavered.  I only marched on, as I did in combat in Afghanistan.  Texas is at a crossroads, and we need genuine freedom fighters to take on the likes of Stephanie Klick and Dede Phelan.  That is why I am answering this call to duty as well....

His entire announcement letter is at the bottom of this blog.  I invite everyone to visit David Lowe's campaign website at: https://www.davidlowefortexas.com 

Also, if we are to change the RINO establishment, we must all, throughout Texas, work to replace RINO legislators who are vulnerable in their districts.  Stephanie Klick's district is just such a target.  She is vulnerable, as was shown by the fact that David Lowe forced her into a runoff in her last election.  Please consider donating to the David Lowe Campaign, by clicking here: 

Help replace Klick... with your own CLICK for David Lowe!

Because Texans keep voting right, but getting left!

- James Scott Trimm

In full disclosure, I live in Klick's district, and intend to help David Lowe in his campaign.

 

 

Texas Taxpayers to Fund "Support and Referral" for Child Gender Mods

 

 

Taxpayers to Fund "Support and Referral" for Child Gender Mods

By James Scott Trimm

Texas State Representatives like RINO Stephanie Klick will be taking a victory lap as this session closes, pretending to have protected children from Child Gender Modification.  In fact there was a bill (HB41 and HB42) that would have criminalized the procedures as child abuse, yet RINO Stephanie Klick. who chairs the committee that oversees such bills,  killed that bill, never even giving it a hearing.  Instead she spearheaded thru a watered down bill that did not actually criminalize these procedures, nor did it define them as child abuse.  In fact, while this bill punishes doctors, it has no penalty at all for parents who give their children blockers that they obtain from out of state.  Even this was a bill which Klick blocked last session, and only passed thru this session because she paid a high political price in the last primary, being forced into a run off with Conservative champion David Lowe, over he blocking of these bills.

In fact this new bill only regulates and does not criminalize the practice of Gender modification in Texas. Fox news has reported that Texas Children's Hospital, which has a so-called "gender affirming care" program, has announced that it will now simply "modify" its "gender-affirming care to comply with the new law," while it "remain dedicated and to educating and amplifying the importance of safe, high-quality transgender medicine programs." They say they will "continue to offer psychological support and any form of care within the bounds of the law" and will refer families to alternatives out of state for hormone blockers and surgeries.

Stephanie Klick, who referred to these procedures as "a type of care" in a debate in her last campaign, with her opponent David Lowe, voted with other Texas Lawmakers, to use your taxpayer dollars to pay for this "support and referral" program.

Conservative champion Tony Tinderholt proposed an amendment to House Bill 1898 which would have deprived funding a children's hospital to be used "to provide mental health services affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex."  

 

Stephanie Klick voted "nay" to this amendment, meaning that she voted for your tax dollars to be used to counsel children to "affirm" to a child that their sex is other than their true biological gender! 

Stephanie Klick has continually shown her true colors in supporting this reprehensible practice of grooming little boys for castration and little girls for mutilation and sterilization! - James Scott Trimm

 

Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

 

Texas House RINOs Vote to Illegally Impeach Paxton

By

James Scott Trimm

 

Saturday was a sad day for Texas Conservatives as the Texas House voted illegally to override the results of a Texas election and impeach Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.  

Under Texas Law a Texas official may not be impeached and removed from office for any act alleged to have been committed prior to his or her most recent election.  The Statute (Government Code, Title 6; Subtitle B Chapter 665  Subchapter D Sec. 665.081)  shown below states, under the heading "NO REMOVAL FOR ACTS COMMITTED BEFORE ELECTION TO OFFICE" as follows: "An officer in this state may not be removed from office for an act the officer may have committed before the officer's election to office."

Those supporting the impeachment have argued that the Statute is invalid because the power to impeach is granted to the Legislature in the Texas State Constitution, can can only be limited by a Constitutional Amendment, not merely by a Statute.  However the Texas State Constitution (Art. III, Sec. 11) under "RULES OF PROCEDURE" that "Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings." And since the Statute in question was passed by both Houses, it certainly constitutes "rules of its own proceedings" which it has "determined" for itself.  In other words, the Legislature must follow its own rules, and the laws that it has passed governing its own operations are binding upon itself according to the Texas State Constitution.

 

The allegations made against Ken Paxton were all made prior to his most recent election last November.  These allegations were used by his Primary opponents and his General Election opponent in their campaigns against him in both the Texas Primary and in the General Election. Millions of dollars were spent by his opponents putting these allegations before the public  

Here are some initial findings (from my friend Tom Glass) about what the Texas Supreme Court has said about the anti-disenfranchisement provision. This is from In re Brown, 512 S.W.2d 317, 320-21 (Tex. 1974)

"Judge Brown raises several objections to the proceedings as a whole which require discussion. First, petitioner says that his re-election to his office after the commission of the things for which he was charged operates as a complete defense to any disciplinary action. He relies upon Article 5986, Vernon's Ann.T.C.S., which says: 

No officer in this State shall be removed from office for any act he may have committed prior to his election to office. 

 Article XV, Section 7, of the Texas Constitution authorizes the Legislature to provide for the removal of officers for whom the modes of removal are not provided in the Constitution. This proceeding is authorized by the Constitution, and for that reason Article 5986 is not applicable. However, the spirit of that statute was applied to a proceeding to remove a judge pursuant to Article XV, Section 6, of the Texas Constitution in the case of In re Laughlin, 153 Tex. 183, 265 S.W.2d 805, 808 (1954). The rule was there stated:

 'Neither may removal (of judges) be predicated upon acts antedating election, not in themselves disqualifying under the Constitution and laws of this State, when such acts were a matter of public record or otherwise known to the electors and were sanctioned and approved or forgiven by them at the election. This holding is in harmony with the public policy declared by the Legislature with respect to other public officials. Article 5986, R.C.S.' 

 The rationale for the doctrine is the sound reason that the public, as the ultimate judge and jury in a democratic society, can choose to forgive the misconduct of an elected official. Reeves v. State, 114 Tex. 296, 267 S.W. 666 (1924). The underlying basis for the principle is that the public can knowingly return one to office in spite of charges of misconduct. Public access to full information was the basis for this court's approval of the rule in Laughlin, supra, as appears from the portion quoted above. Matters of public record or matters which are otherwise known to the electors may be forgiven, says the opinion. Brown, In re, 512 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. 1974)"

 

Texas voters chose to reelect Ken Paxton, being fully aware of these allegations, and this is an illegal conspiracy of RINOS and Democrats to undo the results of a Texas election! 

 Moreover the Impeachment was done, in the words of Matt Rinaldi the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, 

...without considering any direct evidence, without allowing legislators to to interview or cross-examine witnesses, without placing witnesses under oath, without allowing members to talk to investigators, without making witness transcripts available to legislators, without subpoenaing witnesses with direct knowledge of allegations, and without allowing the Attorney General to present evidence or argument.  The result of this indefensible process was to impeach based solely on accusations, hearsay, rumor, innuendo, ans speculation.

This sham process involved secret meetings by a committee of just five House members, who simply delivered a report on Wednesday and held a vote on Saturday on Memorial Day weekend.  Neither the public, nor the vast majority of House members were even aware that such secret hearings were being held to impeach our Attorney General until this last Wednesday.  And rather than conduct hearings before the entire House, the House was simply asked to accept and ratify a report from just five members!

The following are the RINOS that voted with Democrats to illegally impeach Ken Paxton and take away your right to vote for Attorney General.  An "A" means they voted illegally to impeach, an "N" means they voted against this illegal impeachment:

It is time to clean "House" in Texas!

Its Time to End Property Tax in Texas!

 

 

For years our Texas Legislature has promised us tax relief, but they never seem to deliver.  After every session they take a victory lap, claiming to have delivered tax relief, and yet every year our property taxes seem to go up, and not down.  This last session they are claiming to have delivered the biggest tax break in Texas history, but once again they have used fuzzy math, included past compression and have not adjusted their numbers for inflation.  

In fact this last year the State had a 33 billion dollar surplus.  That means Texans were over taxed by 33 billion dollars.  But did our legislature return this money to the taxpayers? No.  They voted to keep it, and find more places to spend it.  

Ronald Reagan said that spending is the leading cause of taxation, and that if you want to lower taxes, you must reduce spending.  He illustrated this point by comparing government to a child who spends too much money.  The solution, he said, was that you quit giving them so much money, and they will quit spending it.  

But our RINO State Legislature has lost sight of these conservative principles, and knowing they have overtaxed Texans, look for even more things on which to spend taxpayer dollars.  

And even when our legislature creates the illusion that they have provided tax relief (when have your taxes ever actually gone down?)  it is usually based on the homestead exemption.  Sadly this kind of alleged tax relief shifts the tax burden from home owners to renters.  Landlords do not enjoy homestead exemptions, and pass their tax burden to their renters, who pay hidden property tax in their rent.  This means we are robbing renters to benefit homeowners. 

So the time has come to end property tax in Texas!  Yes, this can be done.  It would need to be phased out over ten years.  But first, let me explain why this must be done.

Under the property tax system, property owners, in effect, rent their property,  Their property tax, is effectively rent. and if they fail to pay their rent, the state will foreclose and evict them.  This means that the government is landlord over every property owner in Texas (short of Churches and other tax exempt property).  And what do we call it when the government owns all the property?  When the government owns all property, that is called "Communism".  That's right, the Texas property tax system is back door Communism.  And because of this, Texans are never secure in their homes.  A Texan can spend a lifetime of work paying off a home,  and never feel confident that in their old age, after their working years, that the government will not tax them out of their homes, or even worse yet, leave behind a widow who is taxed out of her home!

Yes we can end property tax in Texas.  We will need to phase it out over ten years.  For the first five years we will pay down the next years tax with the annual surplus (the amount by which Texans are already being overtaxed each year) and we will need to phase in a voluntary tax.  By this I mean a very slight increase in sales tax, perhaps a quarter percent.  

Property tax is an involuntary tax, it is a tax on not being homeless (as explained above, even renters pay property tax built into their rent).  We do not charge sales tax on basic groceries in Texas, because we do not want to tax people for simple being survival (eating), so why should we tax them for shelter?  Taxation is theft, and if we must be taxed, let that tax be voluntary, on things you choose to buy (not, for example, groceries).  Whatever your property tax is, imagine that spread out among everything you buy in a year, so to replace the property tax revenue would be a very slight increase in sales tax.  

This will take an amendment to the Texas State constitution, so that once we kill this monster, it will stay dead and never be resurrected.

Imagine the economic prosperity Texas would experience from eliminating property tax.  Property tax is a hidden tax built into every product and service you buy.  Most products you buy have been stored in a warehouse and then brought to a retail location on which property tax is paid, and built into the price of that product.  Moreover all the employees that were involved must be paid enough to pay their property taxes (even if they rent) and that is built into the price of products and services as well.  Property tax is a viscous cycle of hidden taxes!

If the Texas Legislature wants to truly deliver meaningful tax relief to Texans, they can do so by simply proposing a Constitutional amendment before the voters and give Texans the opportunity to vote on this!

Lets end property tax now!

James Scott Trimm 

Stephanie Klick Votes for Gender Mutilation Grooming with your Money!

 

 

Stephanie Klick has just voted to use your tax dollars to groom children for gender mutilation!

During the 2021 legislative session, Stephanie Klick,  blocked all bills to protect children from gender modification.   Klick's campaign also received money from PACs associated with the clinics that perform these draconian procedures, as well as from the the Pharmaceutical company that manufactures Lupron,  a manufactured version of a hormone used as part of transgender hormone therapy, and as a hormone blocker given to children.  (See my blog Stephanie Klick Sent Children to Castration for Campaign Money! )

In fact, during her 2022 election campaign, while debating with conservative David Lowe, Klick actually referred to the gender modification of children as "a type of care"!!!!

Now, during the 2023 legislative session, Klick has voted to give your taxpayer dollars to finance so-called "mental health services" which groom children for so called gender modification in the name of so-called "gender affirming care."

The term "gender affirming care" (like the term "reproductive rights") is a classic example of Orwellian "doublespeak", a form of propaganda that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words to actual inversions of meaning. For example in George Orwell's book 1984 the Big Brother Government controls the people thru four ministries" the Ministry of Peace (which deals with war) the Ministry of Truth (which deals with propaganda), the Ministry of Plenty (which deals with rationing) and the Ministry of Love (the secret police).  When Klick and her ilk refer to child gender modification as "a type of care" or as "gender affirming care" they actually mean the opposite of their words.  Instead of care that affirms the child's biological gender, they refer to care that is aimed at denying and negating the child's biological gender.  Klick would be very much at home in Big Brother's Ministry of Truth.

Conservative champion Tony Tinderholt proposed an amendment to House Bill 1898 which would have deprived funding a children's hospital to be used "to provide mental health services affirming the child's perception of the child's sex if that perception is inconsistent with the child's biological sex."  

 

Stephanie Klick voted "nay" to this amendment, meaning that she voted for your tax dollars to be used to counsel children to "affirm" to a child that their sex is other than their true biological gender! 

 

Stephanie Klick has continually shown her true colors in supporting this reprehensible practice of grooming little boys for castration and little girls for mutilation and sterilization! 

- James Scott Trimm

The U.S. Constitution Prohibits Abortion in Every State

 

 

The U.S. Constitution Prohibits Abortion in Every State
by
James Scott Trimm

On June 24th 2022 SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the question of Abortion back to the states.  But SCOTUS did not go far enough.  In reality the U.S. Constitution prohibits abortion in any state in the Union.  

 

Person's Right to Life Under the 14th Amendment

We read in the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice that the opening clause defines citizens of the United States as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"  however no such qualification is attached to the words "person" in the clause "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." which implies that these two clauses apply to persons who are "born" or "unborn".  Had the framers of this amendment indented these later two clauses to apply only to "persons born", then they could have, and certainly would have, added the same qualifier "persons born" rather than simply "persons" that was used in the opening clause defining who is a citizen. Thus a "person" (born or unborn) must not 

Equal Protection Under the 14th Amendment

Having overturned Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS has empowered states to enact laws criminalizing abortion.  It is now illegal, in some states, to deprive a person, whether born, or unborn. of the right to life, without due process.  Thus, under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, unborn persons in other states, must be granted equal protection.  If abortion is illegal in even one state, it should, as a result, via the equal protection clause, be illegal in all states.

Right to Liberty Under the 14th Amendment

In wrestling with the definition of the nebulous right to "liberty" under the 14th Amendment, SCOTUS ultimately turned to the Bill of Right, creating the "Doctrine of Incorporation" which has applied most of the Bill of Right to the States, via the 14th Amendment.  The logic goes like this, the framers of the 14th Amendment must have had the enumerated liberties found in the Bill of Rights (at least) in mind, when speaking of a right to "liberty".  This means that even if the 14th Amendment  did not contain its own "right to life" the "right to liberty" under the 14th Amendment incorporates the "right to life" found in the 5th Amendment.

 

Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity

Now you may wonder why I brought up the Liberty clause.  After all, while the Liberty clause might get us to the "right to life" guaranteed by the 5th Amendment, the 14th Amendment already has its own "right to life" clause.  Actually there is a very important reason that the "Liberty" clause of the 14th Amendment has special application here.  This is because of what we read in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 Notice that the Preamble guarantees the "Blessings of Liberty" secured by the U/S. Constitution, not only to "ourselves" but to "our Posterity" and "out Posterity" are the unborn, by definition.  If the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment incorporates the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights (and thus the Right to Life in the 5th Amendment), then so must the word "liberty" in the Preamble, and at the very least, the word "liberty" in the Preamble must incorporate the "liberty" in the 14th Amendment, which in turn incorporates the enumerated rights of the Bill of Rights, and thus the 5th Amendment Right to Life.

And what if one should say that the Preamble should not be regarded as law?  First of all the Supremacy Clause does not exclude the Preamble.  Secondly the Supremacy Clause , none the less, reveals to us the intent of the Framers, and finally, SCOTUS used the Preamble as Law in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700  arguing that the phrase "to form a more perfect Union" made the secession of the Confederate states illegal, and while I disagree with this interpretation, it certainly basis its law on the Preamble.

SCOTUS has not done enough simply by overturning Roe v. Wade and returning this issue to the States.  The fact is that the U.S, Constitution clearly prohibits abortion in any State of the Union.