Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Roe v Wade’

Justice Samuel Alito Speaks About Historic Supreme Court Leak for First Time Since Roe v. Wade Decision Divulged to Press


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published May 13, 2022

Read more at https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/justice-samuel-alito-speaks-historic-supreme-court-leak-first-time-since-roe-v-wade-decision-divulged-press/

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered a virtual speech at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School on Thursday. This was his first public appearance since a SCOTUS insider leaked the upcoming Roe v. Wade decision to the liberal press.

A SCOTUS insider leaked the decision to far-left media outlet Politico which ran it last week. The leak happened to coincide with the release of the documentary “2000 Mules” that proved the 2020 election was stolen by a network of leftist ballot traffickers in the battleground states.

Alito told the audience on Thursday after being asked about the decision, “The court right now, we had our conference this morning, we’re doing our work. We’re taking new cases, we’re headed toward the end of the term, which is also a frenetic time as we get our opinions out.”

The FBI and law enforcement still have not found the leaker after a two week investigation. It’s funny how bad they are when the culprit is helping the leftist cause.

Huffington Post reported:

Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court justice who authored the leaked draft majority opinion showing the court is preparing to strike down landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights, addressed the leak for the first time Thursday.

“This is a subject I told myself I wasn’t going to talk about today regarding, you know — given all the circumstances,” Alito said at an event at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, in response to a question about how the justices were getting along, according to The Washington Post.

The nine high court justices met in private Thursday morning for the first time since Politico published Alito’s draft last week.

“The court right now, we had our conference this morning, we’re doing our work. We’re taking new cases, we’re headed toward the end of the term, which is always a frenetic time as we get our opinions out,” Alito said.

“So that’s where we are,” he continued.

Chief Justice John Roberts told a meeting of lawyers and judges at a judicial conference in Atlanta on May 5 that he hoped “one bad apple” would not change “people’s perception” of the Supreme Court, according to CNN.

Roberts previously confirmed the authenticity of the leaked document and said he had ordered an investigation. The source of the leak remains unknown.

Jim Hoft

Jim Hoft is the founder and editor of The Gateway Pundit, one of the top conservative news outlets in America. Jim was awarded the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award in 2013 and is the proud recipient of the Breitbart Award for Excellence in Online Journalism from the Americans for Prosperity Foundation in May 2016.

Liberals rail against Republican Susan Collins after she refuses to vote with Democrats to codify abortion rights


Reported by CARLOS GARCIA | May 05, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/liberals-rail-against-republican-susan-collins-after-she-refuses-to-vote-with-democrats-to-codify-abortion-rights-2657272875.html/

Liberals continued their outrage about Roe v. Wade on Thursday when they railed against Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine for refusing to vote with Democrats to codify abortion rights. Collins was asked by CNN’s Manu Raju if she would join Democrats on the vote, and she said she would not because it would infringe on conscience rights of Catholic churches.

“That right has been enshrined in law for a long time,” said Collins.

Many on the left disagreed and took to social media to assail Collins for her decision.

“Susan Collins wants you to know she supports abortion as long as she doesn’t need to do anything to actually support abortion,” responded Democratic strategist Max Burns.

“Susan Collins can go f*** herself,” read one angry tweet with more than 10k likes.

“I heard the Capitol Police had to assist Susan Collins today because her uterus was desperately trying to get the f*** away from her,” read another angry tweet.

“When Madeline Albright said ‘there is a special place in hell for women who don’t help other women’ – she was talking about Susan Collins,” said another critic.

“Susan Collins is a despicable spineless shell of a former human hollowed out with a fascist slingblade and stuffed with the putrid malignant cells of dead racist nazi misogynistic concerned moralistic f***burgers drinking the runoff of nuclear waste cocktails,” read another tweet with 800 likes.

Officials of the Biden administration are panicking about their inability to stop the Supreme Court from reversing the Roe v. Wade decision according to a report from the Washington Post Thursday. In response to the passions arising because of the leaked decisions, officials have elected to set up a security fence around the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

Here’s more about the Roe v. Wade debate:

Security fencing erected at U.S. Supreme Court ahead of final Roe v. Wade abortion decision www.youtube.com

With all the hatred the Left is displaying, the screaming and name calling, the spewing of hate, riots, threats and more, I thought it would be appropriate to remind everyone what some of God’s Words says about hate.- Jerry Broussard

1 John 4:19-20 We love because God first loved us. Whoever says, “I love God,” but hates his brother is a liar. The one who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love the God whom he has not seen.

1 John 2:8-11 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

1 John 1:6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth.

1 John 3:14-15 If we love our Christian brothers and sisters, it proves that we have passed from death to life. But a person who has no love is still dead. Anyone who hates another brother or sister is really a murderer at heart. And you know that murderers don’t have eternal life within them.

Leviticus 19:17-18 You must not hate your brother in your heart. You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him. You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up conflict, but love covers over all wrongs.

1 Peter 4:8 And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.

1 John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.

Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things the Lord hates— no, seven things he detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that kill the innocent, a heart that plots evil, feet that race to do wrong, a false witness who pours out lies, a person who sows discord in a family.

Matthew 5:23-24 So if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.

Hebrews 12:15  Look after each other so that none of you fails to receive the grace of God. Watch out that no poisonous root of bitterness grows up to trouble you, corrupting many.

Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.

Matthew 10:22 And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24:9  “Then you will be arrested, persecuted, and killed. You will be hated all over the world because you are my followers.

Galatians 5:20-21 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – On the Hook

A.F. BRANCO | on May 6, 2022 | https://comicallyincorrect.com/a-f-branco-cartoon-on-the-hook/

Will SCOUTS push abortion rights back to the states based on the leaked opinion?

Roe vs Wade SCOTUS
Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2022.

DONATE to A.F.Branco Cartoons – Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 – $5.00 – $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 – it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and President Donald Trump.

REPORT: Justice Roberts ‘Likely’ To Order FBI Investigation Into SCOTUS Leak


Reported by DIANA GLEBOVA | ASSOCIATE EDITOR | May 03, 2022

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/report-justice-roberts-likely-to-order-fbi-investigation-into-scotus-leak-2657253222.html/

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks At University Of Miami
(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts will likely launch an investigation involving the FBI into the SCOTUS leak from the Dobbs abortion case, according to CBS News’ Elizabeth Campbell. The apparent Feb. 10 draft opinion obtained by Politico published Monday shows that the initial majority opinion of the court is poised to strike down the landmark Roe V. Wade decision granting women the right to an abortion. 

“This is an unprecedented leak from SCOTUS. It raises questions about how the institution will ever recover, and how Chief Justice Roberts will respond,” Campbell tweeted.

“Sources tonight tell  [CBS News’ Jan Crawford] he is likely to order a full-blown investigation, involving the FBI, to determine the source,” Campbell added.

This is an unprecedented leak from #SCOTUS. It raises questions about how the institution will ever recover, and how Chief Justice Roberts will respond. Sources tonight tell @JanCBS he is likely to order a full-blown investigation, involving the FBI, to determine the source.

The draft opinion showed that five justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted to overturn, while three — Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — dissented, according to Politico. Roberts has reportedly not yet made his decision.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to the outlet.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” the opinion reportedly continued. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

No draft opinion in modern history has ever been leaked while the case was still pending, according to Politico.

Democrats’ Abortion Bill That Would Go Further Than Roe Fails After Close Vote


Reported by LAUREL DUGGAN, SOCIAL ISSUES AND CULTURE REPORTER | February 28, 2022

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2022/02/28/democrats-further-roe-vote-womens-health-protection-act-abortion-bill/

Schumer And Senate Democrats Hold News Conference On Abortion Rights Legislation
Win McNamee/Getty Images

Nearly every Senate Democrat voted in favor of legislation Monday which would have radically expanded abortion rights beyond even the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade. The Women’s Health Protection Act would have forced every state to allow abortions for any reason until at least the point of viability, generally defined at around six months into a pregnancy, and banned most restrictions on abortion up to the point of birth. Every Republican voted against the bill, and every Democrat except Sen. Joe Manchin voted in favor, NBC News reported.

The WHPA would have invalidated all state and local laws restricting what types of abortion procedures are permissible while banning requirements that doctors give women medical tests such as ultrasounds before administering abortions, unless such requirements also applied to “medically comparable procedures.” The bill proposed various deregulatory measures that would have loosened safety requirements nationwide for abortion providers, such as ending restrictions on doctors prescribing pills via “telemedicine” for do-it-yourself chemical abortions at home.

Abortion is a procedure used “primarily by women,” the bill explained before justifying the use of the word “woman,” and noting that “transgender men” and “non-binary individuals” need abortion rights too. 

“Women’s decisions over women’s health care belong to women, not to extremist right-wing legislatures,” commented Sen. Chuck Schumer, who called abortion a “fundamental right.”

Jeane Mancini, the president of the March for Life, said it was the most radical abortion legislation in American history. “This bill is obviously designed by pro-abortion politicians to appease the abortion lobby. Lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation, must reject it,” she commented.

The bill is an apparent attempt to codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, which is being reconsidered by the Court and could potentially be overturned in June.

John Wesley Reid Op-ed: Roe v. Wade in the balance: What you need to know about Dobbs v. Jackson


Commentary By John Wesley Reid, Op-ed Contributor| Tuesday, November 30, 2021

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/voices/what-you-need-to-know-about-dobbs-v-jackson.html

Supreme Court
Participants in the March for Life 2019 assemble at United States Supreme Court on January 18, 2019. | Photo: The Christian Post

On December 1, Roe v. Wade will face a significant threat: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health.

Capitol Hill police expect up to 20,000 protestors on the morning of December 1, a historic turnout of pro-life and pro-choice advocacy that will likely result in a larger crowd than any Supreme Court demonstration ever.


How is Dobbs different than other abortion cases?

The Supreme Court has reviewed several cases related to abortion since 1973’s Roe decision. But of these cases, only Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 addressed the Roe precedent. Other cases involving abortion were related to late-term abortions, free speech rights of pro-life advocates, and restrictions on abortion providers based on ambulatory care or proximities to particular medical services, among other issues.

Viability

A major component to Roe was the issue of viability. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court has agreed to address the question:

“Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”

Why is this question significant?

This question is significant because Roe forbids states from prohibiting abortion pre-viability. This prohibition is the very reason why lower courts have kept Roe in place. Indeed one of the judges that struck down Mississippi’s law in the lower federal courts said,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting viability is entirely implicative that their decision will, in some fashion, directly impact the Roe precedent.

What are the potential outcomes to Dobbs?

There are essentially three possible outcomes of Dobbs: The Court can strike down the Mississippi abortion law, the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law while still maintaining Roe, or the Court can uphold the Mississippi abortion law and overturn Roe altogether. John Bursch, who serves as senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, spoke with the Freedom Center’s managing editor John Wesley Reid to expound on the potential outcomes of Dobbs.

Bursch has argued 12 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and over 30 state Supreme Courts. According to the Federalist Society, Bursch has the “third-highest success rate for persuading justices to adopt his legal position,” compared to other lawyers not working for the federal government.

Option 1: A strike down of Mississippi’s 15-week ban

If the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion will have reached its terminal demise. While Mississippi does have the option to request a reconsideration from the Court, such petitions are rare, their approval is rarer and a reversed decision is even rarer.

Ultimately, if the Supreme Court affirms the lower court rulings, the fight against abortion will remain in place as it was before Dobbs. For some pro-life advocates, this would be a debilitating setback. For others, it would inspire them to fight harder.

Option 2: A middle ground option

If the Court rejects the lower courts’ rulings and upholds Mississippi’s law, they could also uphold Roe. This would look like the Court rejecting the viability clause in Casey since viability is not objectively known. In 1973, the gestational age at which a child could generally survive outside of the womb was seen as later in the development stage.

But there have been great medical advancements in neonatology since even 1992 when Casey was heard, and so a child’s viability could be recognized by the Court as being much sooner in the development stage. In fact, with medical technological advancements, we now know that viability is sooner than the 24 weeks gestation that the courts have unofficially held to in the past. In fact, over the past few years, the world has seen multiple examples of babies surviving as young as 21 weeks, debunking the generalized 24 week idea. So, the middle ground option could appear as a new standard for statewide abortion regulation.

From a pro-life perspective, this option is an incremental victory, not a pragmatic victory. The vast majority of abortions happen before 15 weeks gestation. Thus, the middle ground option would bring pro-life efforts closer to their goal but would still only be a chip of their larger agenda.

Option 3: An Overturn of Roe v. Wade

If the Court sees reason to, a complete overturn of Roe v. Wade could result from the Dobbs decision. In the event of a Roe overturn, it is widely agreed that regulatory power will return to the states, enabling them to outlaw abortion if they so choose — and many of them are trying to do so already.

How will each justice likely rule in Dobbs?

It is naive to assume that a justice’s ideology will follow their decisions in every ruling and, by extension, an ideological majority should be seen with the same scrutiny.  While it’s easy to assume that the right bloc will rule conservative and the left bloc liberal, that isn’t always the case on the ideological spectrum, even with specific issues. How the justices will decide the Dobbs case can subjectively be analyzed based on their prior rulings and personal positions towards abortion.

To be fair, not all of the cases below relate to the viability aspect of Roe and Casey. This arguably renders them irrelevant to the following analysis, except that some of the justices still refer to Roe and Casey in their opinions despite the case’s irrelevancy towards viability. So, even “irrelevant” cases are worth considering.

Listed by seniority, here are the current justice’s voting records and statements related to abortion:

Chief Justice Roberts

Conservatives have largely coined the Chief Justice as a wild card, given some of his decisions, which, technicalities aside, have not landed on the right, i.e. upholding “Obamacare” in National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, effectively redefining “sex” in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Bostock v. Clayton County, among others. Some have gone so far as to call him a liberal. But that logic is self-defeating. That is, to ideologically categorize someone based on the minority of their opinions, what does that say to the majority of their opinions? If a reputably conservative justice rules in 10 cases, in which three they take liberal leanings, what is one to say of the liberal justice who votes conservative in three of ten decisions? The conservative court of public opinion would certainly not hail the liberal justice as a conservative.

To be fair, Roberts does push the envelope in general. But on abortion, Roberts has ruled ideologically right in most abortion-related cases before him.

In Carhart v. Gonzales, Roberts ruled in the majority to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt Roberts ruled in the minority to uphold a Texas law that would require certain restrictions on abortion clinics, such as shorter proximities to admitting hospital care. He was joined by current Justices Thomas and Alito.

In June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts ruled in the majority against a law that mirrored the law in Hellerstedt. The curious move from the chief justice after he ruled to uphold the similar law in Texas was, in his words, because “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.” Even though Roberts voted to uphold the Texas law in Hellerstedt, since the majority opinion struck it down, Roberts felt that precedent takes priority over reconsideration. This is important to note since the upcoming Dobbs case directly counters the precedent set in Roe and Casey. Roberts may have jurisprudential reason to think that Roe was a bad call, but he also thought that about the Hellerstedt decision, and based his June Medical decision off of the precedent of a decision he dissented with.

In NIFLA vs. Becerra, Roberts ruled to strike down a California law that required non-abortive pregnancy centers to provide abortion referrals. While this case was more about free speech than it was about abortion, the Court ruled on ideological lines. Roberts was joined by current Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.

In addition to his rulings, Roberts was the signatory of a 1990 Bush Sr. White House brief that stated Roe was “wrongly decided” and “should be overruled.” Whether this brief may have been more in step with the administration as a whole and not just Roberts is debated. At the time, Roberts was the Deputy Solicitor General. During Roberts’ confirmation hearings both to the D.C. Circuit Court and U.S. Supreme Court, he was aggressively pressed for his position on abortion and Roe, to which he provided diplomatic non-answers, as is routine for federal judge appointees.

Verdict: Still a wild card, but evidence hints that he might uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban with the middle-ground option.

Justice Thomas

Thomas has ruled ideologically rightin every abortion-related case before him.

The longest seated jurist on the current Court, Justice Thomas’ record is perhaps the most absolute when considering whether he’d overturn Roe, since he in fact did rule to overturn Roe when given the chance. Thomas is the only justice on the current Court who was also seated during the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, for which he ruled in the minority.

Thomas opposes the Roe and Casey precedents — and enthusiastically so. In June Medical v. Russo, a win for abortion advocates, Thomas dissented and said of abortion precedents:

“But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.“

Verdict: No wild card here. Justice Thomas looks like a sure win to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Breyer

Considered moderately liberal, Justice Breyer, the eldest of the justices, has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before him.

Verdict: Justice Breyer is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Alito

Like Thomas, Justice Alito has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before him.

While a federal judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito was one of three judges to rule on Planned Parenthood v. Casey (before the case was heard by the Supreme Court). Alito was the lone dissenter in an overturn of the spousal notification portion of the law being challenged.

Alito also expressed personal opinions about abortion, particularly about Roe, before his career as a federal judge. In a 1985 memo, he said,

“We should make clear that we disagree with Roe v. Wade and would welcome the opportunity to brief the issue of whether, and if so to what extent, that decision should be overruled.”

While this quote does not provide an absolute current position taken by Alito, it does reinforce the rest of his reputation towards abortion and Roe. To be fair, Alito is also on the record as having acknowledged that Roe is precedent. But in the same fairness, these remarks were made during his confirmation hearing to the Appeals and Supreme Court where any appointee will refuse to give their position on a judicial matter.

Verdict: Alito is very likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

Justice Sotomayor

The anchor of the Court’s left bloc, Justice Sotomayor has ruled ideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

A constant supporter of abortion, Sotomayor has been less than shy in her dissents. In a 5-4 decision last September, the Court refused to interfere with the Texas heartbeat law, effectively upholding it. In her dissent, Sotomayor said,

“For the second time, the Court is presented with an application to enjoin a statute enacted in open disregard of the constitutional rights of women seeking abortion care in Texas. For the second time, the Court declines to act immediately to protect these women from grave and irreparable harm.”

Though the Court later decided to hear the case, Sotomayor gave a strong statement of opposition towards her juristic colleagues in reference to the Court’s original denial of injunctive relief. While addressing law students via virtual appearance, Sotomayor said,

“You know, I can’t change Texas’s law. But you can, and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”

Verdict: Given her opinions, and the reasons for them, Justice Sotomayor is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justice Kagan

Similar to Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan is a moderate on the Court’s left bloc but has ruledideologically left in every abortion-related case before her.

The only hint she has ever shown towards abortion restrictions came while working in the Clinton White House, when she urged the president to support a partial-birth abortion ban, though it is generally agreed that her motive was for political purposes and not ideological. Regardless, partial-birth abortions are outside the parameters of Roe’s application. One can consistently support Roe while opposing partial-birth abortions, thus even if she is opposed to partial-birth abortion, her record shows unfettering support for Roe.

During the oral arguments for the Texas heartbeat law challenge, Kagan expressed her opposition to the law but also affirmed the Court’s precedent:

“The actual provisions in this law have prevented every woman in Texas from exercising a constitutional right as declared by this court … That’s not a hypothetical. That’s an actual.”

Verdict: Justice Kagan is very likely to rule against Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have much shorter records to analyze on abortion, though both have ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before them.

Gorsuch, while on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled on a unique string of abortion-related cases, though none that address the Roe precedent.

Off the bench, their personal opinions on abortion are also limited and not directly related to Roe.

For a clarifying point about Kavanaugh, many who opposed his appointment to the Supreme Court alluded to a 2003 email between Kavanaugh and James C. Ho, then-Chief Counsel for the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. An excerpt from the email reads,

“I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”

The email does not provide any substantial reason to suggest that Kavanaugh, who was working in the Bush Administration at the time, would overturn Roe, despite what his critics said of the email during his 2018 confirmation. Still, Kavanaugh was clear that precedent is not as concrete as perhaps Chief Justice Roberts would hold. So, if Kavanaugh did have reservations about overturning Roe, we can likely eliminate precedent as his hesitancy.

The three justices Kavanaugh was likely referring to were Thomas, Scalia and Rehnquist considering they were the only three justices on the Court in 2003 who ruled to overturn Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Verdict: It is likely that both Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will rule to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Whether they’d take the middle ground option or overturn Roe is not clear.

Justice Barrett

The newest of the justices, and the youngest woman ever appointed to the High Court, Justice Barrett has ruled ideologically right in every abortion-related case before her — but it’s worth noting the secondary nature of abortion in these cases.

While on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barrett ruled on cases where abortion was secondary, including the disposal of fetal remains and whether abortion on the basis of race, sex, or gender is lawful. Barrett also favored a ruling that would require doctors to inform parents of a minor seeking an abortion.

While on the Supreme Court, Barrett has only had the opportunity to grant or deny injunctive relief when opposition tried to halt the Texas heartbeat law, which she refused along with Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Despite her minimal ruling history on abortion, there is reason to believe Barrett is pro-life. In 2006, Barrett and her husband Jesse endorsed an advertisement with Right to Life St. Joseph County that condemned Roe v. Wade. In 2008, Barrett co-authored a journal entry for the Notre Dame School of Law which stated that abortion “is always immoral.” When questioned about this publication during her confirmation hearings, Barrett said that she and her co-author were referencing the standard of the Catholic Church’s teachings and said that if she was confirmed, her faith would have no influence “on the discharge of my duties as a judge.” While this could sound as if her pro-life position is dormant in her jurisprudence, it is crucial to remember the normalcy of neutral answers during confirmation hearings.

Verdict: Justice Barrett is likely to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn Roe.

The Battle Timeline of Mississippi’s 15-Week Abortion Ban:

March 2018

On March 19, then-governor of Mississippi Phil Bryant signs the 15-week abortion ban into law. Hours later, the Center for Reproductive Rights files suit in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Mississippi.

On March 20, 2018, the Center for Reproductive Rights is granted their request of a temporary restraining order, blocking the 15-week ban for 10 days.

November 2018

The Center for Reproductive Rights is granted a permanent injunction by the same federal court, blocking Mississippi’s 15-week ban on abortion indefinitely. When issuing the order, Judge Carlton Reeves delivers a strong rebuke of the Mississippi legislature:

“…the real reason we are here is simple. The State chose to pass a law it knew was unconstitutional to endorse a decades-long campaign, fueled by national interest groups, to ask the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. This Court follows the commands of the Supreme Court and the dictates of the United States Constitution, rather than the disingenuous calculations of the Mississippi Legislature.

“Mississippi’s law violates Supreme Court precedent, and in doing so it disregards the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of autonomy for women desiring to control their own reproductive health.”

December 2019

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirms the lower court’s decision, with Judge Patrick Higginbotham opining,

“In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman’s right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman’s right, but they may not ban abortions.”

Mississippi then requests a hearing en banc, which would summon the entire 5th Circuit and not just a panel of three. This request is denied the following January.

June 2020

Mississippi files a writ of certiorari requesting the U.S. Supreme Court review the 15-week abortion ban.

May 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court grants Mississippi’s request.

December 1, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Dobbs.


Originally published at Standing for Freedom Center

John Wesley Reid is the editor-in-chief at the Standing for Freedom Center. Follow him on Twitter at @johnwesleyreid.

Abortion case before Supreme Court could deal serious blow to Roe v. Wade and give pro-lifers a huge win


The United States Supreme Court will hear a case out of Louisiana on Tuesday that could significantly increase states’ ability to enact laws restricting abortion and make it harder for doctors or clinics to challenge them in court, CBS News reported.

What’s the case?

June Medical Services v. Russo is a case that challenges a 2014 Louisiana law known as the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act. That law requires doctors and abortion clinics to have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital in order to operate. Pro-abortion advocates view the law as a backdoor way to severely restrict abortion access, while the stated intent of the law is to ensure the safety of patients at abortion clinics.

A federal judge struck down the law based on a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that blocked an allegedly similar law in Texas. But an appeals court reversed that decision, saying the Louisiana law was different enough from the Texas law that it could stand, with one of the reasons being that driving distances in Louisiana were not as great in Texas, so the impact of potentially fewer abortion clinics in the state was less significant.

A question at the heart of this case is whether doctors or clinics have legal standing to challenge state regulations. If it is determined that they don’t, it could become more difficult for abortion advocates to oppose pro-life laws.

What could the impact be?

Opponents of the admitting privileges law say that hospitals often only extend admitting privileges to clinics that will regularly send patients. Since abortions are generally safe, they argue, it is difficult for them to get admitting privileges. Additionally, some medical institutions in a place like Louisiana don’t want to be associated with abortion. So an admitting privileges requirement would effectively eliminate most abortion clinics in the state.

While bans on abortion procedures are often struck down due to Roe v. Wade, bans on abortion access are another way states could limit abortion. Louisiana is certainly a state that would seek to eliminate abortion to any extent possible under the law, and a win in this case would be a huge step toward that.

“If the court allows the Louisiana law to stand, we will probably look back on this case as the acceleration of the total demise of the right to abortion in this country,”said Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center, according to the Los Angeles Times. “Without overruling Roe, the court could gut what is left of the constitutional right to abortion.”

Where do the justices stand?

This case takes on additional interest due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court, including the most recent additions of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices to put the Louisiana law on hold until a full appeal, but the conservative lean of the court presents a real chance of a legal win for pro-life advocates after arguments have been heard.

The Pro-Life Legacy of Norma McCorvey, the ‘Roe’ of Roe v. Wade


waving flagAuthored by Katrina Trinko / / February 19, 2017

“Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation,” Norma McCorvey said. (Photo: Shaun Heasley /Reuters/Newscom)

Jane Roe did not live out her life by the script. As the “Roe” of the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, she would have been expected to be a staunch pro-choice advocate for the rest of her life.

She wasn’t.

ROE

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

Roe, whose real name was Norma McCorvey, died Saturday in Texas of a heart ailment. She was 69.

In an ad from 2008, as the Catholic News Agency noted, McCorvey detailed her change of views on abortion after she became a Christian in the mid-1990s.

“Upon knowing God, I realized that my case, which legalized abortion on demand, was the biggest mistake of my life,” she said.

“You see, abortion has eliminated 50 million innocent babies in the U.S. alone since 1973. Abortion scars an untold number of post-abortive mothers and fathers and families, too.”

It wasn’t the first time she’d spoken about her pro-life perspective.

“I believe that I was used and abused by the court system in America,” McCorvey said in testimony in 2005 before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Instead of helping women in Roe v. Wade, I brought destruction to me and millions of women throughout the nation.”

She detailed her journey over the years from abortion advocate to pro-life activist in that testimony, in which she mentioned the baby she ultimately chose not to abort:

I am glad today that that child is alive and that I did not elect to abort. I was actually silent about my role in abortion for many years and did not speak out at all. Then, in the 1980s, in order to justify my own conduct, with many conflicting emotions, I did come forward publicly to support Roe v. Wade. …

Then around 1992, I began to work in abortion clinics. Like most Americans, including many of you senators, I had no actual experience with abortion until that point. When I began to work in the abortion clinics, I became even more emotionally confused and conflicted between what my conscience knew to be evil, and what the judges, my mind and my need for money were telling me was OK. I saw women crying in the recovery rooms. If abortion is so right, why were the women crying?

Even Sen. Hillary Clinton on January 25, 2005 was reported by The New York Times to finally admit ‘that abortion is a sad, even tragic choice for many, many women.’ Actually it is a tragic choice for every child that is killed and every woman and man who participates in killing their own child, whether they know it at the time or not. Many women will be in denial and even pro-choice for years like I was.

But participating in the murder of your own child will eat away at your conscience forever if you do not take steps to cleanse your conscience, which I will discuss later.

I saw the baby parts, which are a horrible sight to see, but I

Why isit legal

Image added by WhatDidYouSay.org

urge everyone who supports abortion to look at the bodies to face the truth of what they support. I saw filthy conditions in abortion clinics even when ‘Roe’ was supposed to clean up ‘back alley’ abortions. I saw the low regard for women from abortion doctors.

My conscience was bothering me more and more, causing me to drink more and more and more. If you are trapped in wrongdoing then all you can do is justify and defend your actions, but the pain gets worse and worse, so I drank a lot to kill the pain.

Finally, in 1995, a pro-life organization moved its offices right next door to the abortion clinic where I was working. I acted hatefully towards those people. But those people acted lovingly to me most of the time. One man did angrily accuse me at one point of being responsible for killing 40 million babies, but he later came to me and apologized for his words and said they were not motivated by love. The answer to the abortion problem is forgiveness, repentance, and love.

McCorvey was, to understate it, an unlikely pro-life activist. But her own conversion on abortion gives hope that other Americans will follow in her footsteps.I AM A PERSON with Poem

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina.

Gov. Nikki Haley Signs Ban On Abortions After 19 Weeks


waving flagReported by Randy DeSoto May 25, 2016

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley signed into law Wednesday a ban on abortions after 19 weeks, joining 16 other states with similar legislation. Medical personnel who perform abortions at 20 weeks and beyond face up to three years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The law makes exceptions to save the life of the mother, or if the unborn child has severe abnormalities that would prevent viability outside of the womb.

Alyssa Miller, South Carolina director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said in a statement, “This is a dangerous bill for South Carolina women, … made even more extreme by removing exceptions for victims of rape and incest.”

“These bans are now in effect in 13 states and blocked by court challenges in three others. South Dakota’s ban takes effect July 1,” Politico reported.

Supreme Court legal precedent permits states to place restrictions on abortions once the unborn child is deemed viable, but the High Court has not ruled specifically when that moment in the pregnancy is.

In Roe v. Wade (1973), the justices in the majority pointed to the third trimester (after 24 weeks) as the key time frame in the unborn child’s development, when the state’s interest in protecting “potential life” becomes compelling.ROE

Pro-life advocates and many scientists believe life begins at the moment of conception, and modern medicine continues to push back the time in the pregnancy when a child can survive outside of the womb.

Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser called the legislation the “latest victory amid a flurry of state-level pro-life activity being led by women lawmakers.” Dannenfelser also lobbied Congress to enact a similar measure, Raw Story reported.

“A national limit — which would save up to 18,000 lives a year and protect many women — is long overdue,” she said. “The U.S. is only one in seven nations to allow late-term abortion after the five-month mark. If we take back the White House and protect our pro-life majorities in Congress, we can pass this legislation in 2017.”I AM A PERSON with Poem

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

She Had an Abortion at 15. How It Changed Her Life.


waving flagAuthored by Kelsey Harkness / / March 07, 2016

3,348 women share testimony before the U.S. Supreme Court about how they’ve been hurt by the abortion industry. (Photo: iStock)

Nona Ellington was 15 years old when she found out she was pregnant. A victim of rape, Ellington felt alone, ashamed, and desperate for help. After a free pregnancy test came back positive, showing that Ellington was five weeks pregnant, she went forward and scheduled an abortion. Around October 1983, Ellington, who was still in high school at the time, aborted the only child she would ever successfully conceive.

“As a result of that [abortion], I was never able to have children,” Ellington told The Daily Signal. “I had five miscarriages, two were pregnancies that required emergency surgery, and [during] the last one in 2004, the only tube I had left ruptured, so I was bleeding internally, and they almost lost me.”

When Ellington was eventually ready to have children with her then-husband, she said she visited a fertility doctor who “confirmed that it was the abortion that had damaged me so much that I was not able to have children.” Ellington considered trying in vitro fertilization (IVF)—where an embryo is manually transferred into the uterus—but said even if it would work, her health insurance didn’t cover the cost.

“It covered abortion. But not fertility stuff,” Ellington said.

Looking back on her experience, Ellington calls abortion the most “selfish” decision she ever made, and now she spends her time trying to warn other women against it.

As part of that effort, Ellington joined 3,348 women who who shared their abortion “injury” stories with the U.S. Supreme Court as part of what’s called an amicus curiae brief. Their hope is that by discussing their “injuries”—both physical and mental—the Supreme Court justices will uphold a controversial Texas law that places new regulations on the abortion industry.

Myra Jean Myers (left) and Nona Ellington (right) share their abortion stories in a brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court for the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Myra Jean Myers (left) and Nona Ellington (right) share their abortion stories in a brief filed before the U.S. Supreme Court for the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, is being called one of the biggest abortion cases since Roe. v Wade, in which the Supreme Court said that women have a right to abortion while also affirming a state’s right to regulate the practice. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt could signal how far states are allowed to go in issuing those regulations.I knew you

The law in question, known as H.B.2, requires abortion facilities in Texas to maintain the same standards as ambulatory surgery centers and abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Whole Woman’s Health and its supporters believe that the imposed regulations dangerously limit women’s access to safe and legal abortion.

“Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States, and neither of the requirements imposed by the Texas law would make it any safer,” the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement. “Worse, this law clearly imposes an undue burden on a large number of Texan women, who would no longer have reasonable access to abortion care when needed, forcing them to wait longer before an abortion, travel across state lines for safe care, or even forego abortion care altogether.”Leftist Propagandist

Those in favor of upholding the law argue that the regulations are “commonsense” for the health and safety of women.

The law, wrote Sarah Torre, a pro-life expert at The Heritage Foundation, “was passed in response to the conviction of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who ran a ‘House of Horrors’ abortion clinic for over a decade with nearly no government oversight.” She added:

After the Gosnell grand jury recommended new clinic regulations and after hearings on the medical risks of abortion, Texas (along with other states) decided to require abortion clinics to meet the same minimum cleanliness and safety standards as other outpatient surgery facilities and require doctors performing abortions to have the credentials to admit a patient to a nearby hospital.

Myra Jean Myers, another plaintiff on the Supreme Court brief, said she’s experienced some of these dangers I AM A PERSON with Poemfirsthand. Both Myers and Ellington spoke last week at a press conference held at the Family Research Institute one day before the court heard oral arguments for the case.

“Abortion is a dangerous procedure,” Myers said. After her procedure, Myers said, “I had a hysterectomy two months later.”

A hysterectomy is a surgery to remove a woman’s uterus. At 28 years old, Myers, too, would never be able to conceive again due to her abortion.

Myra Jean Myers, pictured above, said her husband pressured her into getting an abortion, believing "the lie that it’s not a child yet. "

Myra Jean Myers, pictured above, said her husband pressured her into getting an abortion, believing “the lie that it’s not a child yet. “

Allen E. Parker, a lawyer at The Justice Foundation, which is the non-profit submitting the personal testimony by women who allege injuries caused by abortion, said most of the participants “suffered grievous psychological injuries,” “but many suffered severe physical complications as well.” The most common physical complications of abortion, he added, are hemorrhaging, punctured uterus, punctured colons, and scarring of the uterus.

“In abortion, you’re basically scraping the walls of the uterus and the contents of the uterus with a scalpel-like instrument,” he said. “And you’re doing it by hand in most instances, or by feel, the doctors would say. And you can punch the wrong part, and that’s where the complications occur.”

As for the mental conditions, Parker cited guilt, shame, sadness, depression, anxiety, drug abuse, and suicide as the most common conditions.

Ellington blames her abortion for causing her to “spiral” into a “very destructive behavior of drugs, alcohol, and promiscuous sex.” Myers said that while the physical scars are still present, it’s the mental anguish that continues to haunt her.

“Nothing wounds you like being responsible for the death of your child,” she said at the press conference.how many body parts

Parker, who sounded hopeful that the Supreme Court will consider the testimony of the 3,348 women when issuing their ruling in the case, added, “Whether you’re for abortion or against it, you can acknowledge that some women are hurt by abortion, and we ought to do everything we can to protect these women.”

This article has been updated to correct a fact about Nona Ellington. The original article referred to a court document that was about a different Nona Ellington.

Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

Obama: Roe v. Wade “Affirmed Freedom”


waving flagWritten by Philip Hodges, Jan 23, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://constitution.com/obama-roe-v-wade-affirmed-freedom

I AM A PERSON with Poem

In a statement published on WhiteHouse.gov, President Barack Obama championed the landmark 1973 court decision Roe v. Wade, saying that it “affirmed a woman’s freedom.”

Yesterday marked the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade. In honor of the court decision, President Obama had this to say:

“Today, we mark the 43rd anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed a woman’s freedom to make her own choices about her body and her health. The decision supports the broader principle that the government should not intrude on private decisions made between a woman and her doctor. As we commemorate this day, we also redouble our commitment to protecting these constitutional rights, including protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her right to reproductive freedom from efforts to undermine or overturn them. In America, every single one of us deserves the rights, freedoms, and opportunities to fulfill our dreams.”how many body parts

The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) – a pro-life organization – reports that there have been an estimated 58,586,256 abortions in the United States since the 1973 court decision.

In addition, an estimated 43.8 million abortions occurred worldwide in the year 2008 alone, according to a peer-reviewed article in the well-known medical journal The Lancet. The only other years where worldwide abortions were estimated were 1995 and 2003.

Abortion Screenshot

Interestingly, Norma McCorvey was the famous plaintiff in Roe v. Wade. Her attorneys gave her the name Jane Roe to give her some level of anonymity.

When she was 21 years old, she was living with her father in Texas, where she became pregnant with her third child. Her friends counseled her to report the pregnancy as being the result of rape, which they thought could have persuaded authorities to grant her an abortion. However, in the absence of evidence and a police report, and the illegality of abortion in Texas at that time, an abortion wasn’t an option.

Two young attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington had been working on changing Texas law to allow for abortion, but in order to make their case, they needed to find a pregnant woman who wanted an abortion and who also couldn’t afford to travel to another state that allowed abortion.

Five-months-pregnant Norma McCorvey fit the profile. McCorvey lied to the attorneys and told them that she had been raped, and signed the required affidavit without even reading it, and thus began the court proceedings that led to the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Since the case took years to settle, McCorvey did not have an abortion. She had the baby and gave it up for adoption.

In the years since the pivotal court decision, Norma McCorvey has actually recanted her former beliefs in abortion rights and has become a passionate pro-life advocate. She became a Christian in the mid-90s and has worked with pro-life organizations such as Operation Rescue, which she left to start her own pro-life ministry “Roe No More.”

Alibi In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Judicial Activism From Supreme Court on Marriage. Here’s How to Respond.


waving flagWritten by Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson Ryan T. Anderson / / June 26, 2015 /

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/26/judicial-activism-from-supreme-court-on-marriage-heres-how-to-respond

U.S. Supreme Court (Photo: Jonathan Larsen/Getty Images)

Today is a significant setback for all Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, democratic self-government, and marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage. This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives. The court got marriage and the Constitution wrong today just like they got abortion and the Constitution wrong 42 years ago with Roe v. Wade. Five unelected judges do not have the power to change the truth about marriage or the truth about the Constitution.

The court summarized its ruling in this way—which highlights that they have redefined marriage, substituting their own opinion for that of the citizens:

The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central mean­ing of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest. 

Manifest to five unelected judges that is. Not to the majority of American citizens who voted to define marriage correctly. As Chief Justice Roberts pointed out in dissent:

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.

That’s exactly right. When it comes to the majority opinion, the Constitution “had nothing to do with it.”

We must work to restore the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy that reflects the truth about marriage. We the people must explain what marriage is, why marriage matters, and why redefining marriage is bad for society. For marriage policy to serve the common good it must reflect the truth that marriage unites a man and a woman as husband and wife so that children will have both a mother and a father. Marriage is based on the anthropological truth that men and woman are distinct and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children deserve a mother and a father.It HasNever Been About Marriage

The government is not in the marriage business because it’s a sucker for adult romance. No, marriage isn’t just a private affair; marriage is a matter of public policy because marriage is society’s best way to ensure the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage acts as a powerful social norm that encourages men and women to commit to each other so they will take responsibility for any children that follow.

Redefining marriage to make it a genderless institution fundamentally changes marriage: It makes the relationship more about the desires of adults than about the needs—or rights—of children. It teaches the lie that mothers and fathers are interchangeable.

Because the court has inappropriately redefined marriage everywhere, there is urgent need for policy to ensure that the government never penalizes anyone for standing up for marriage. As discussed in my new book, “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom,” we must work to protect the freedom of speech, association and religion of those who continue to abide by the truth of marriage as union of man and woman.burke

At the federal level, the First Amendment Defense Act is a good place to start. It says that the federal government cannot discriminate against people and institutions that speak and act according to their belief that marriage is a union of one man and one woman. States need similar policies.

Recognizing the truth about marriage is good public policy. Today’s decision is a significant setback to achieving that goal. We must work to reverse it and recommit ourselves to building a strong marriage culture because so much of our future depends upon it.War on Christians

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., researches and writes about marriage and religious liberty as the William E. Simon senior research fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He also focuses on justice and moral principles in economic thought, health care and education, and has expertise in bioethics and natural law theory. He’s the author of the forthcoming book, “The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty.” Read his research.

Supreme Court Decisionfreedom combo 2

I Am Overwhelmed by 55 Million Babies Killed Since Roe v. Wade


http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/22/i-am-overwhelmed-by-55-million-babies-killed-since-roe-v-wade/

by Kristan Hawkins | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 1/22/13 11:40 AM

What can I say that hasn’t already been said about today?

Yesterday evening, I was sitting in my living room working while watching my sons play. I began to think about what my life would have been without them. How different I would be. How their lives have already made this world a different place since they were born. How much I would hurt if I had chosen abortion.

Then, I thought of the more than 55,000,000 lives that have been taken in the U.S. since 1973, and I became overwhelmed at the tragedy. Tragedy for the babies, their mothers, their fathers, families, and us.

Who is our nation missing? What price is our society paying for the ultimate deceit of abortion?

40 years ago today, seven men on the Supreme Court decided in favor of a case presented to them from a 27 year-old, unknown, post-abortive lawyer, Sarah Weddington. That case was Roe v. Wade and, along with its companion Doe v. Bolton, it legalized abortion in all 9 months of pregnancy, for any reason, in the United States.

Today, this 27 year-old is writing to you as a survivor of that decision. The undeniable fact is that nearly a third of my generation is missing. We are missing brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, husbands and wives.

You see, Miss Weddington’s generation got it wrong. In attempting to correct gender inequality in the workplace and in our society, they set into motion the ultimate act of discrimination – abortion. Instead of glorifying motherhood, they pitted the mother against her child, creating an endless cycle of selfishness, pain, and deceit.

But this generation is determined to set it right. We’ve seen the ultrasounds of our siblings, googled “abortion” and seen the bloody images, and sat with a friend as she cried about her abortion. This youth generation is the most pro-life generation of young people since 1973; we’re even more pro-life than even our parents’ generation. And this week our presence will be known as this generation will be the predominant participants in Wednesday’s March for Life in Washington, D.C. and pro-life rallies across the nation.

This week, we will be proudly carrying our “I am the Pro-Life Generation” signs, and Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry will watch their target audience slip away.

In fact, we already have. When Nancy Keenan, the former president of NARAL/Pro-Choice America, announced her resignation last year, she cited the lack of young pro-abortion leaders as the reason she wanted to step down. This month’s Time magazine headline story dealt with the same problem, claiming that the pro-abortion movement has been losing since 1973.

And last week’s new Planned Parenthood video and talking points on abortion confirm this fact. They don’t want to use the term “pro-choice” anymore because it’s too negatively associated with abortion. You see, they know when abortion is mentioned, their favorability falls. Their goal? Never bring it up.

So, what should be our goal? To bring up abortion in every conversation we can – in church, the grocery store, at school, and at the neighborhood party. To never forget about abortion, no matter how busy our lives may get or how sad or immobilized we become by this immense, overwhelming tragedy.

Friend, it’s time to rise up. Rise up off of your couch, out of your dorm room, or pew. Rise up and dedicate your life to something bigger than yourself.

It is the time for us to tell our stories to our friends and family about how abortion has hurt us. It’s time to paint the vision by telling people what our nation will look like without abortion and how it’s possible. It’s time to seek real justice with those young women and men facing unplanned, crisis pregnancies. It’s time to shine the light of truth, to expose Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry for what they really are.

It’s the time to stand courageously for Life.

Friends, I believe this generation of survivors will see abortion abolished in our lifetime. But it won’t be easy.

“Never give up, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.” – Harriet Beecher Stowe

I hope today, on this day of overwhelming sorrow, you will join us. There’s so much you can do.

LifeNews Note: Kristan Hawkins is the president of Students for Life of America and a LifeNews blogger.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: