Multiverse Journal - Index Number 2221:, 11th July 2025, Court Motion: State is Obligated to Assist Father/Public Duty to Protect a Child from Abortion.
Journal across Realities, Time, Space, Soul-States.
—
July 11th, 2025
Good Friday,
May the Spirit of the Gospel and the Holy Word be Always on our Tongues, in our Hearts, Minds, and in our Hands.
Holy Virgin Mother Mary and All Saints - Pray for us!
—
Index Number 2221:
— —
—
May this article find us all ever closer to God, and His Truth.
Here is a small taste. It tastes like Christmas to me. How about you.
—
The court must recognize:
That any morally aware and willing adult may exercise the father's duty to protect the unborn from Abortion when the father cannot.
That the State has an obligation to protect and support such individuals in preventing the death of an unborn child.
That it is unconstitutional and unjust for the State to penalize or use violence against such persons who act lawfully and morally to defend innocent life.
That the State must provide legal recognition, immunity from prosecution, and material support to those who intervene to stop abortion in fulfillment of a universal moral obligation.
—
Full Apologetic court-like document after Map image.
God Bless.,
Steve
-
AI generated audio overview of this Article;
URL: https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/05bdb7f7-536c-4e50-90f4-e3dbfa6024b3/audio
Title: The Illegitimacy of the Modern State's Monopoly on Violence: A Constitutional Critique
Abstract: The modern democratic State claims the exclusive right to exercise legitimate violence within its jurisdiction. This monopoly, classically justified by social contract theory and the pursuit of justice, is contingent upon moral consistency, equal treatment under law, and impartial application of force. This paper argues that the State's long-standing sanctioning of abortion, combined with sex-based disparities in legal rights and access to lethal power, invalidates its claim to such a monopoly. Consequently, the State has forfeited its moral authority and constitutional legitimacy to act as sole wielder of force or moral arbiter in matters such as family law.
I. Introduction
The concept of the State's monopoly on violence, as articulated by Max Weber and enshrined implicitly in modern constitutional democracies, presumes a foundation of moral restraint and universal justice. It is this presumed integrity that justifies the State's exclusive power to enforce laws, exact punishment, and override private force.
However, when the State uses this monopoly to permit or even promote private acts of lethal violence without public scrutiny or legal process—such as through the legalization of abortion—it contradicts its own foundational principles. Moreover, when it does so in a sex-discriminatory manner, denying men equivalent legal rights or moral standing, it violates the equal protection guarantees of constitutional law.
II. The Constitutional Basis of State Force
Modern constitutions, including that of the United States, presume that government power is derived from the people and constrained by rule of law. The Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments in particular provide for due process, equal protection, and the sanctity of life and liberty.
The State's power to use force, whether through law enforcement, war powers, or judicial punishment, is tightly bound to procedural safeguards. This principle extends to protection of life: the government cannot deprive persons of life without due process of law.
Yet abortion, as currently practiced, is an extra-judicial act of intentional killing authorized by the State, with no trial, hearing, or burden of justification beyond the private desire of one party.
III. Abortion and the Delegation of Lethal Force
Since Roe v. Wade (1973) and especially under Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the U.S. legal framework has granted women the ability to authorize the termination of a developing life within their wombs. This delegation of lethal force is:
Not constrained by due process
Not overseen by neutral public authority
Not subject to cross-examination or opposing argument
Thus, the State has contracted out its power of life and death to a private individual, based on subjective reasoning, sex-based status, and with no reciprocal rights for the father. This is inconsistent with any constitutional vision of ordered liberty or equal justice.
IV. Sex-Based Disparity and Legal Incoherence
The legal right to abortion is not universally available to both sexes. Only women may exercise this lethal discretion; men are excluded categorically.
This creates two systems of law:
One in which women are sovereigns over life and death of their offspring
Another in which men have no comparable recourse, standing, or authority
This disparity contradicts the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection of the laws to all persons. No just State can claim legitimacy while authorizing violence for one class and denying equal redress or moral standing to another.
V. Consequences for the State's Monopoly on Force
By permitting one class of citizen to kill at will, the State has:
Abdicated its exclusive claim to regulate violence
Undermined the universality of its law
Betrayed its obligation to protect life impartially
Furthermore, by enforcing this system selectively—e.g., prosecuting private violence by men, but ignoring lethal acts by women under the abortion regime—the State weaponizes its monopoly politically, not morally.
Such a government cannot be trusted to wield force justly, nor to determine when violence is warranted. The monopoly, once predicated on reason and justice, now functions arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
VI. Motion for Judicial Redress: The Father's Right to Protect Life
Given the moral and legal incoherence demonstrated above, it follows that the State cannot claim a just and exclusive monopoly on violence in matters where it has abandoned its duty to protect innocent life, specifically that of the unborn.
A father, under both Natural Law and civil duty, possesses a right, obligation, and moral imperative to protect his offspring from unjust harm or death. When the State sanctions the killing of unborn children without offering the father legal standing, redress, or protective authority, it becomes complicit in an injustice that transcends mere procedural failure.
No legitimate State may criminalize a father’s resistance to the destruction of his unborn child while simultaneously refusing him access to lawful protection of that child. The State, having permitted and protected a one-sided power of life and death, has relinquished its claim to be the sole moral and legal authority over protective force.
Therefore, this court must recognize:
That the State’s authorization of abortion violates Natural Law, due process, and equal protection.
That a father’s duty to protect his unborn child is an inalienable right rooted in nature and affirmed by civil society’s foundational ethics.
That any use of State violence—whether through law enforcement or judicial punishment—against a father exercising this duty is illegitimate.
That the State must not only permit but actively support the father in fulfilling this obligation to protect his child from unjust harm, including from abortion.
Until the law is corrected to affirm this natural and constitutional duty, the father’s obligation stands above unjust statutes and bureaucratic fiat. The State must either reform itself to protect all life equally or surrender its pretension to moral and legal supremacy in matters of life and family.
VII. Motion for Judicial Redress: The Public Duty to Protect Life
Where the father is unable, unaware, or obstructed from fulfilling his natural and civil duty to protect his unborn child from death by abortion, the duty devolves to the broader community under Natural Law and moral obligation.
Any adult who becomes aware that an unborn child is at risk of imminent abortion, and who takes upon themselves the role of protector in place of the father, should be granted the same legal and moral standing as the father in this matter.
This surrogate protector acts not from personal claim but from a universal duty to defend innocent life from unjust killing. Such action is consistent with the principles of parens patriae when the State fails to protect the vulnerable.
Accordingly, this court must recognize:
That any morally aware and willing adult may exercise the father's duty when the father cannot.
That the State has an obligation to protect and support such individuals in preventing the death of an unborn child.
That it is unconstitutional and unjust for the State to penalize or use violence against such persons who act lawfully and morally to defend innocent life.
That the State must provide legal recognition, immunity from prosecution, and material support to those who intervene to stop abortion in fulfillment of a universal moral obligation.
The obligation to prevent unjust killing is not extinguished by the failure or absence of biological parenthood. The duty to protect life transcends familial titles and legal fictions, resting instead on the shared humanity and moral responsibility inherent to civil society.
VIII. Conclusion
The modern State, in sanctioning abortion while denying equal legal standing to both sexes and failing to uphold universal standards of justice, has forfeited the moral and constitutional basis for its monopoly on violence. It no longer functions as a neutral arbiter but as a biased enabler of selective lethal power.
A just society must reconsider the foundations of political authority and revisit the conditions under which the State may wield force. Until consistency, equality, and due process are restored, the State's monopoly on violence is illegitimate and must be challenged both legally and morally.
In particular, the State must be restrained from interfering with, and required to assist, the father—and any rightful adult acting in his place—in the lawful and moral duty to protect the unborn from abortion.