Today, April 5th, 2016 is the Wisconsin Primary. Votes will be cast from 7AM til 8pm Central Time. Please everyone in Wisconsin, who supports Mr. Donald J. Trump for our next US President, get out and vote for The Donald! #SMARTWOMEN4TRUMP #REALMEN4DJT #TRUMPARMY #TRUMPTRAIN #ALWAYSTRUMP #ONLYTRUMP #WOMENFORTRUMP #MAKEAMERICAGREATAGAIN and all other great people who support Mr. Trump and use #TRUMP hashtags galore…
My husband, a film maker, who is also a Pastor among many other giftings, David Orts, attended US Presidential Republican candidate Donald J. Trump’s rally in Superior, WI yesterday.
David is a multi-talented man who is charismatic, jovial, rough around the edges, brutally honest, yet very generous and kind man, not unlike, The Donald. He didn’t get a chance to get a one on one interview with the very busy Republican candidate, Mr. Trump, but he did capture some amazing video of what it’s like, as a supporter, to be in the heart of a high energy Trump rally.
“Wisconsin The Hinge State” film was born. It is about 15 minutes in length.
I encourage all aboard the #TrumpTrain to watch this mini documentary film Wisconsin The Hinge State” which my husband David Orts @drdaveorts produced. Please share it broadly via Twitter/FB however you desire.
It has been our (David’s and my) observation, on social media there are many associated with #CruzCrew #NeverTrump #AlwaysCruz that seem to be extremely wounded, angry and confused right now for a variety of reasons. And there are many still undecided voters across all party lines that need to know we Trump supporters would welcome them to jump aboard with us on this journey to the White House in 2016.
Since both Republican camp’s supporters, Cruz and Trump, are mainly comprised of Conservatives and most are also Christians, we must lead the way to be uniters not dividers. Let us who support @realDonaldTrump lead by Christ-like examples as best as we can, being true to ourselves yet truer to God by the Power of Jesus Holy Spirit, for the very survival of our nation, and the future of all Americans is at stake now in this next Presidential election. We have to elect a solid, strong, takes no nonsense leader who is led of The Lord Jesus in all he says and does even if he doesn’t know it yet.
For those in the “establishment” who would say or do anything to prevent the Trump movement from proceeding, we ask you to please stop interfering with the overwhelming will of “We The People.” Please ask Ohio Governor John Kasich to step down and suspend his campaign? He is doing nothing other than interfering with what should be a two-man race between the two remaining Republican candidates who started out of seventeen initial competitors.
There are rumors swirling that Reince Priebus has been speaking with Speaker Paul Ryan and that the “establishment” will try to insert him as their choice in a contested convention. America doesn’t need such elitist hogwash shoved upon us. We The People who love God, Family, our US Military our allies such as Israel, can truly decide who we want to lead our nation. We are educated, we see clearly, we read, we write, we teach, we talk, we preach, we work, we laugh, we cry, we suffer, we fight, we pray, we perservere. We will decide and you will not steal this election away from us.
Oh and Mark Levin, you say you are a friend to Donald? Please start acting like one.
Donald J. Trump has what it takes to lead a family, multiple companies, and a nation as grand as ours. In order to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain we are certain he will depend upon the Grace, Mercy & Wisdom of God listening to wise council delegating hard tasks that need specific qualified talents. Mr. Trump has shown his learning curve is swift. He is deft at acquiring knowledge and adapting at new challenges. He is up for the job of President of the United States.
May God Bless Donald and his wife Melania, all his children, and grandchildren and all who surround him in his entire sphere of influence in Jesus Holy & Precious Name above all Names. Yeshua Ha Mashiach’s Name
M. Katherine Orts wife to Pastor and film-maker David A. Orts writing and reporting for WorldWideBroadcasting in association with PushBackNow.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth”
Former First Lady and Secretary of State and current, potential Democratic nominee for 2016, Hillary Rodham Clinton, received the “prestigious” Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award in 2009. The honor is stated by Planned Parenthood to be, “our highest honor.”
by M. Katherine Orts reporting for USDefenseLeague.com & WorldWideBroadcasters.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth”
Thanks to the deliberate, moral and ethical actions of some concerned filmmakers, the revealing truth of just how vile, which is an anagram for evil, Planned Parenthood, founded by the racist Democratic Margaret Sanger truly is.
“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”
“The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
China forcibly restrains mothers in order to kill unborn children inside their mother’s wombs in order to comply with China’s one child policy per family. Warning to all pregnant visitors traveling for work or for play to the United Kingdom (UK). The UK forcibly sedates pregnant, momentarily anxiety ridden visitors, seeking assistance in its nation. A plea for help by the police resulted in the cutting open via court ordered C-section of its Italian pregnant caller who had traveled to the UK for work. The pregnant temporary resident had misplaced her two daughter’s passports and had called the authorities for assistance in locating the documents. This request resulted in the immediate placement of the distraught professional into a psychiatric facility in which she was forcibly restrained and sedated.
As reported by Christopher Booker of the Telegraph, UK’s Social Services requested and obtained an order by the court to remove the mother’s unborn baby (without consent by Italian mother or American father) via C-Section. The baby is now fifteen months old and has been put up for adoption. As far as is being reported, it is unknown if the birth mother or birth father have ever been allowed to even see or visit their daughter. In our opinion, the UK’s ‘all-knowing’ Social service workers and ‘We know what’s best for you and your children’ Family jurisdictional courts are predators of the worst kind and the United States Department of Social Services Family and Children’s system is also quite broken.
We will keep you updated on this shocking case which is now before the appeal courts with one of the best UK’s solicitors that can be retained Brendan Fleming as well as John Hemming, MP who has helped other foreign parents in similar less bizarre cases. This seems to be the most extreme case that either party has ever seen or heard of. According to Hemming having an unborn baby forcibly removed from it’s own mother and sent out to be adopted is:
“extraordinary, unlike any other case I have come across, and one I hope to raise in Parliament.” ~PBN
Last summer a pregnant Italian mother flew to England for a two-week Ryanair training course at read more
From Sonar to echoes, ultrasound has had many uses. The first to use the transformative technology in obstetrics and gynecology application was pioneer, DR. Ian Donald, of Glasgow, Scotland in 1959.
In 1959 Ian Donald noted that clear echoes could be obtained from the fetal head and began to apply this information. I became involved shortly afterwards, and indeed was given the project to play with on my own. At the Royal Maternity Hospital, Rottenrow, there was no separate room to examine the patients and not even a cupboard in which to keep the apparatus, so my colleague, the physicist Tom Duggan, and I pushed it about on a trolley and approached patients in the wards for permission to examine them at the bedside. Glasgow women are wonderful and they accepted all this without demur …….. . We applied the method of fetal head measurement to assess the size and growth of the foetus. When the Queen Mother’s Hospital opened in 1964 it became possible to refine the technique greatly. My colleague Dr. Stuart Campbell (now Professor at King’s College Hospital, London) did this and fetal cephalometry became the standard method for the study of fetal growth for many years.- Excerpted from an article in the University of Glasgow publication ‘Avenue’ No. 19: January 1996 entitled ‘ Medical Ultrasound —- A Glasgow Development which Swept the World ‘, by Dr. James Willocks MD, who had best described the circumstances of Donald’s early work.
“Out of sight is to be out of mind,” goes the old cliche. The precise quote, “Out of sight, out of mind. The absent are always in the wrong.” – Thomas a Kempis
When it’s applied to an unborn baby in an uniformed or misinformed (and possibly scared to death, pregnant for the first time) mother’s womb, the cliché may end in a deadly way. Particularly now, in abortionists clinics across the land since the highest court of the land refuses to hear an appeal by Oklahoma officials desiring to see ultrasounds required to be performed prior to killing a fetus in the act of abortion. Or as many see it, prior to murdering an innocent soon to be born human being.
George Soros and his new bride Tamiko Bolton pose in this handout photo provided courtesy of Myrna Suarez, after their wedding in Bedford, New York September 21, 2013. (Credit: REUTERS/Myrna Suarez/Handout)
Congratulations to the newly weds, George Soros and Tamiko Bolton who are celebrating their new marriage to one another as of September 21. 2013. It is shocking however their choice of suggested donations in lieu of gifts.
In lieu of gifts, the couple asked that donations be made to charities, including Global Witness, Harlem Children’s Zone, National Dance Institute, Planned Parenthood and the Roma Education Fund.
So, does suggesting to guests to donate to Planned Parenthood equate to possibly aiding in killing an unwanted baby in the act of an abortion? Potentially, and unfortunately, the high likelihood is yes! Planned parenthood does not make its money in preventative women’s “healthcare” or performing mammograms (it doesn’t do mammograms at all but refers out to other unrelated providers) no matter what Obama says. read more
“Listen, from the time you started inside your mother’s womb, Thomas Jefferson had it right, you have the God-given right to life for crying out loud. You’re this long (pointing to his finger). You’re a week old inside your mother. They suck you out of there when you’re about like that (point to finger again). You wouldn’t be here tonight! read more
[Graphic Warning] This is raw video footage from the AP. Workers carefully rescue a newborn infant boy, with the placenta still attached, from a sewage pipe. Someone had heard this precious newborn’s cries coming out of the public squat toilet restroom and sent for help. The rescued infant is known as “Baby 59 — so named because of his incubator number in the hospital in the Pujiang area of the city of Jinhua.”
Most of us are still raw emotionally from the recent grisly Gosnell live birth abortion atrocities. The one child policy in China has lead to similar horrors. The New York Times reports on the grisly reality of Chinese babies being forcibly ripped out of their mother’s wombs after being injected with poison and waiting an unthinkable 2 days or more strapped to a table with agonizing emotional and physical pain of both mom and the murdered baby. Parents are penalized by their government for having more than one child, hence the occurrence of these unthinkable actions from presumably a scared traumatized teenage mom. We will stay on this story to give you more details. We cannot become desensitized to the precious gift of life in any nation. -PBN
Publisher’s Editorial: 40 years and over 55,000,000 life ending murders aka “abortions” ago Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton both became victims of fraud. An anniversary should be a joyous celebration, sadly they are not always. It is not a celebratory memory, but it does mark the anniversary of tens of millions of murders of the most precious of us. This marker is a reminder of how vile and evil the blood lusting liberal left are. Monsters do exist. Liberals have made murder of the most innocent “legal” by fraud and lies. You will find at the center of liberal’s evil goals, two pawns, two innocent pro life women who never sought abortions.
It is also the Anniversary of a continuing Farce & Denigration of Our US Constitution and the manipulation of our Supreme Court Judicial System.
How and why?
Due to two false precedents, illegal ones at that. It is indeed a historical fact, though incredulously still not a widely disseminated one, that both the plaintiffs in Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton proceeded on with their pregnancies and gave birth to their babies prior to the courts rulings on their matters making the Supreme Court’s decisions irrelevant and moot. In addition, the plaintiffs’ attorney(s) in both cases allegedly used their names and previous conditions (pregnancies) to obtain standing without their knowledge or consents. “Roe” didn’t learn of the case’s outcome until reading it two years later in the newspaper and “Doe” had no knowledge that a case had even been filed, heard and ruled on, using her name! They are both Pro-Life and are Proponents of the Right to Life for ALL unborn children.
Roe’s attorney Coffee and Weddington never had her appear in court or for that matter explain that an abortion would end the life of the unborn baby. Norma McCorvey (Roe) was duped. The story of Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) here.
Mary Doe was Sandra Cano she says, “Little did I know, going to the Legal Aid was going to result in being a Plaintiff in abortion, which is something I’ve never been for, I’ve been against, I never sought an abortion, never sought to be a plaintiff in this case. I was in the dark about it for a long, long time. I think the public knows more about the case than I do. I was never a participant.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling in both cases were based upon cases which no longer existed and which were brought about via fraudulent and dubious means. Both cases rulings resulted in the violation of the most basic Constitutional Right of any future child’s right to exist, not for those two children but for the millions who never had a chance to be heard. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Charters of Freedom here.If you’re pregnant or know someone who is and are thinking about an abortion, do some research, talk to some people, we hope these links will help, may God bless you.
M. Katherine Orts writing/reporting for USDefenseLeague.com PushBackNow.com in conjunction with WorldWideBroadcaster.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth” for the Glory of God in Jesus Name!
Good afternoon, Chairman Brownback and Senator Feingold, and thank you very much for inviting me to testify before you and your subcommittee on this important subject.
I am Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a think tank that for three decades has been dedicated to exploring and explaining how the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and this country’s foundational principles ought to inform and shape public policy on critical issues.
The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s program on The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, which I direct, explores the competing conceptions of the role of the courts in our political system. This program focuses, in particular, on what is at stake for American culture writ large—for the ability of the American people to function fully as citizens, to engage in responsible self-government, and to maintain the “indispensable supports” of “political prosperity” that George Washington (and other Founders) understood “religion and morality” to be.
1. Why re-examine Roe v. Wade?
Why are we here today addressing a case that the Supreme Court decided 32 years ago, that it ratified 13 years ago, and that America’s cultural elites overwhelmingly embrace? The answer, I would submit, is twofold.
First, Roe v. Wade marks the second time in American history that the Supreme Court has invoked “substantive due process” to deny American citizens the authority to protect the basic rights of an entire class of human beings. The first time, of course, was the Court’s infamous 1857 decision in the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)). There, the Court held that the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which prohibited slavery in the northern portion of the Louisiana Territories, could not constitutionally be applied to persons who brought their slaves into free territory. Such a prohibition, the Court nakedly asserted, “could hardly be dignified with the name of due process.” Id. at 450. Thus were discarded the efforts of the people, through their representatives, to resolve politically and peacefully the greatest moral issue of their age. Chief Justice Taney and his concurring colleagues thought that they were conclusively resolving the issue of slavery. Instead, they only made all the more inevitable the Civil War that erupted four years later.
Roe is the Dred Scott of our age. Like few other Supreme Court cases in our nation’s history, Roe is not merely patently wrong but also fundamentally hostile to core precepts of American government and citizenship. Roe is a lawless power grab by the Supreme Court, an unconstitutional act of aggression by the Court against the political branches and the American people. Roe prevents all Americans from working together, through an ongoing process of peaceful and vigorous persuasion, to establish and revise the policies on abortion governing our respective states. Roe imposes on all Americans a radical regime of unrestricted abortion for any reason all the way up to viability—and, under the predominant reading of sloppy language inRoe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, essentially unrestricted even in the period from viability until birth. Roefuels endless litigation in which pro-abortion extremists challenge modest abortion-related measures that state legislators have enacted and that are overwhelmingly favored by the public—provisions, for example, seeking to ensure informed consent and parental involvement for minors and barring atrocities like partial-birth abortion. Roedisenfranchises the millions and millions of patriotic American citizens who believe that the self-evident truth proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence—that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life—warrants significant governmental protection of the lives of unborn human beings.
So long as Americans remain Americans—so long, that is, as they remain faithful to the foundational principles of this country—I believe that the American body politic will never accept Roe.
The second reason to examine Roe is the ongoing confusion that somehow surrounds the decision. Leading political and media figures, deliberately or otherwise, routinely misrepresent and understate the radical nature of the abortion regime that the Court imposed in Roe. And, conversely, they distort and exaggerate the consequences of reversing Roe and of restoring to the American people the power to determine abortion policy in their respective States. The more that Americans understand Roe, the more they regard it as illegitimate.
Reasonable people of good will with differing values or with varying prudential assessments of the practical effect of protective abortion laws may come to a variety of conclusions on what abortion policy ought to be in the many diverse states of this great nation. But, I respectfully submit, it is well past time for all Americans, no matter what their views on abortion, to recognize that the Court-imposed abortion regime should be dismantled and the issue of abortion should be returned to its rightful place in the democratic political process.
2. Roe v. Wade
In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the Court addressed the constitutionality of a Texas statute, “typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century,” that made abortion a crime except where “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Id. at 116, 118.The seven-Justice majority, in an opinion by Justice Blackmun, ruled that the Texas statute violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”). The Court ruled that the Due Process Clause requires an abortion regime that comports with these requirements that the Court composed:
“(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
“(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
“(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. at 164-165.
Merely describing Roe virtually suffices to refute its legitimacy. One of the two dissenters, Justice Byron White—who was appointed by President Kennedy—accurately observed that Blackmun’s opinion was “an exercise of raw judicial power” and “an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review.” 410 U.S. at 222 (combined dissent from Roe and Doe v. Bolton).
Here are typical criticisms of Roe—from liberals who supporta right to abortion:
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.” John Hart Ely, The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade, 82 Yale L.J. 920, 935-937 (1973).
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Laurence H. Tribe, The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 7 (1973).
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” “Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years sinceRoe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” Edward Lazarus, The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them, Oct. 3, 2002 (at http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/lazarus/20021003.html). (Mr. Lazarus was a law clerk to Blackmun and describes himself as “someone utterly committed to the right to choose [abortion]” and as “someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”)
“[Roe’s] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” Archibald Cox,The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government 113-114 (1976).
Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” Benjamin Wittes, Letting Go of Roe, The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
The defects of Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion in Roeare manifest and legion. A brief review of lowlights is nonetheless warranted:
Blackmun’s rambling world-history tour of “man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries,” 410 U.S. at 117, wanders from the ancient Persian Empire to the position of the American Public Health Association in 1970 and of the American Bar Association in 1972. Yet, even apart from how unreliable and misleading Blackmun’s tour has been shown to be, it fails to address squarely the most relevant history—the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. As then-Justice Rehnquist’s dissent points out, as of 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion,” including the Texas statute the Court struck down in Roe. See 410 U.S. at 174-175 & n. 1.
Blackmun’s opinion modestly states:
“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” 410 U.S. at 159.
But while feigning not to decide the question of when a human life begins—a question that is in fact rather simple as a matter of biology—the Court in essence ruled illegitimate any legislative determination that unborn human beings are deserving of protection from abortion.
A critical step in Roe is the bare assertion, unsupported by any argument or authority, that the “right of privacy” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” 410 U.S. at 153.
In explaining the abortion regime that he was inventing, Blackmun stated:
“This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” 410 U.S. at 165.
This language openly reveals that Roe is a policymaker’s balancing of considerations, not an authentic judicial interpretation of the Constitution.
3. Doe v. Bolton
The same day that the Court decided Roe, it rendered its decision in Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973). As the Court said in Roe, Roe and Doe “are to be read together.” Roe,410 U.S. at 165. Doe presented the question whether Georgia’s abortion legislation, patterned on the American Law Institute’s model legislation, was constitutional. 410 U.S. at 181-182. Among other things, the Georgia statute provided that an abortion shall not be criminal when performed by a physician “based upon his best clinical judgment that an abortion is necessary because [a] continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health.” Id. at 183. In the course of upholding this provision against a challenge that it was unconstitutionally vague, Justice Blackmun’s majority opinion determined that the
“medical judgment [as to health] may be exercised in the light of all factors—physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age—relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” Id. at 192.
It is not entirely clear what Blackmun’s garbled discussion is intended to mean. The predominant assumption appears to be that Blackmun was construing the Georgia statute’s health exception in accord with what he regarded as its natural legal meaning (or, alternatively, in a way that he thought necessary to salvage it from invalidation on vagueness grounds). Under this reading, the authority thatRoe purports to confer on states to “regulate, and even proscribe, abortion” after viability is subject to the loophole ofDoe’s health exception. See, e.g., Women’s Medical Professional Corp. v. Voinovich, 130 F.3d 187, 209 (6th Cir. 1997)(“Roe’s prohibition on state regulation when an abortion is necessary for the ‘preservation of the life or health of the mother’ must be read in the context of the concept of health discussed in Doe” (internal citation omitted)). Because the practical meaning of this loophole would appear to be entirely at the discretion of the abortionist, it would swallow any general post-viability prohibition against abortion.
Under an alternative reading, Blackmun’s language should be understood merely as construing the Georgia statute and not as speaking, directly or indirectly, to the meaning of the post-viability health exception in Roe. See, e.g., Voinovich v. Women’s Medical Professional Corp., 523 U.S. 1036, 1039 (1998) (opinion of Thomas, joined by Rehnquist and Scalia, dissenting from the denial of certiorari) (“Our conclusion that the statutory phrase in Doe was not vague because it included emotional and psychological considerations in no way supports the proposition that, after viability, a mental health exception is required as a matter of federal constitutional law. Doe simply did not address that question.” (emphasis in original)).
4. Myths about Roe
Myths about Roe abound, and I will not strive to dispel all of them here. One set of myths dramatically understates the radical nature of the abortion regime that Roe invented and imposed on the entire country. Roe is often said, for example, merely to have created a constitutional right to abortion during the first three months of pregnancy (or the first trimester). Nothing in Roe remotely supports such a characterization.
A more elementary confusion is reflected in the commonplace assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion. At one level, this proposition is true, but it completely obscures the fact that the Court did not merely legalize abortion—itconstitutionalized abortion. In other words, the American people, acting through their state legislators, had the constitutional authority before Roe to make abortion policy. (Some States had legalized abortion, and others were in the process of liberalizing their abortion laws.) Roe deprived the American people of this authority.
The assertion that Roe “legalized” abortion also bears on a surprisingly widespread misunderstanding of the effect of a Supreme Court reversal of Roe. Many otherwise well-informed people seem to think that a reversal of Roe would mean that abortion would thereby be illegal nationwide. But of course a reversal of Roe would merely restore to the people of the States their constitutional authority to establish—and to revise over time—the abortion laws and policies for their respective States.
This confusion about what reversing Roe means is also closely related to confusion, or deliberate obfuscation, over what it means for a Supreme Court Justice to be opposed toRoe. In particular, such a Justice is often mislabeled “pro-life.” But Justices like Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Thomas who have recognized that the Constitution does not speak to the question of abortion take a position that is entirely neutral on the substance of America’s abortion laws. Their modest point concerns process: abortion policy is to be made through the political processes, not by the courts. These Justices do not adopt a “pro-life” reading of the Due Process Clause under which permissive abortion laws would themselves be unconstitutional.
5. Planned Parenthood v. Casey
In 1992, the Supreme Court seemed ready to reverse Roeand to end its unconstitutional usurpation of the political processes on the abortion question. Instead, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter combined to produce a joint majority opinion so breathtaking in its grandiose misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s role that it makes one long for the sterile incoherence of Blackmun’s opinion inRoe.
In Casey, the Court relied on the combined force of (a) its “explication of individual liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause and (b) staredecisis to reaffirm what it described as (c) the “central holding” of Roe. 505 U.S. at 853. Each of these elements warrants scrutiny.
The core of the Court’s explanation of the liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause is its declaration, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” 505 U.S. at 851. This lofty New Age rhetoric should not conceal the shell game that the Court is playing. What the Court’s declaration really means is that the Court is claiming the unconstrained power to define for all Americans which particular interests it thinks should be beyond the bounds of citizens to address through legislation.
Even with this infinitely elastic standard, the authors of the joint opinion are not ready to assert that Roe was correctly decided. Instead, they rest their reaffirmation of Roe on an understanding of stare decisis, and of the role of the Court generally, that betrays a remarkably profound confusion. I cannot quote the full discussion, but these passages are all too typical:
“Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roeand those rare, comparable cases, its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” 505 U.S. at 866-867.
“To all those who will be so tested by following [the Court], the Court implicitly undertakes to remain steadfast, lest in the end a price be paid for nothing. The promise of constancy, once given, binds its maker for as long as the power to stand by the decision survives and the understanding of the issue has not changed so fundamentally as to render the commitment obsolete.” 505 U.S. at 868.
“Like the character of an individual, the legitimacy of the Court must be earned over time. So, indeed, must be the character of a Nation of people who aspire to live according to the rule of law. Their belief in themselves as such a people is not readily separable from their understanding of the Court invested with the authority to decide their constitutional cases and speak before all others for their constitutional ideals. If the Court’s legitimacy should be undermined, then, so would the country be in its very ability to see itself through its constitutional ideals. The Court’s concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the Court but for the sake of the Nation to which it is responsible.” 505 U.S. at 868.
It is probably not possible to improve on Justice Scalia’s devastating responses to the joint opinion’s bizarre assertions:
“The Court’s description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve. National politics were not plagued by abortion protests, national abortion lobbying, or abortion marches on Congress, before Roe v.Wade was decided. Profound disagreement existed among our citizens over the issue—as it does over other issues, such as the death penalty—but that disagreement was being worked out at the state level.” 505 U.S. at 995.
“Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since. And by keeping us in the abortion umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any pax Roeana, that the Court’s new majority decrees.” 505 U.S. at 995-996.
“The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges—leading a Volk who will be ‘tested by following,’ and whose very ‘belief in themselves’ is mystically bound up in their ‘understanding’ of a Court that ‘speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals’—with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
‘The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . .’ The Federalist No. 78.
“Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration … with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
‘[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861).” 505 U.S. at 996-997.
While abandoning Roe’s trimester framework, the Caseyjoint opinion then reaffirmed what it characterized as Roe’s central holding: “a State may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy before viability.” 505 U.S. at 879. It also stated that it reaffirmed Roe’s holding (which, as discussed above, apparently was to be read with Doe’s malleable definition of health) that even after viability abortion must be available “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Id. In addition, it adopted a subjective and amorphous “undue burden” standard for assessing incidential abortion regulations before viability. Id. at 878.
6. Stenberg v. Carhart
The Supreme Court’s decision in 2000 in Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, provides special insight into the Court’s abortion regime. That case presented the question of the constitutionality of Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion.
This case crossed my mind five months ago as my daughter was being born and her head was first starting to emerge.
Pardon me as I briefly describe what partial-birth abortion is: It’s a method of late-term abortion in which the abortionist dilates the mother’s cervix, extracts the baby’s body by the feet until all but the head has emerged, stabs a pair of scissors into the head, sucks out the baby’s brains, collapses the skull, and delivers the dead baby.
According to estimates cited by the Court, up to 5000 partial-birth abortions are done every year in this much-blessed country.
In the face of a division of opinion among doctors over whether partial-birth abortion is sometimes safer than other methods of abortion, the Court, by a 5-4 vote, deferred to the view of those who maintained that it sometimes is and invalidated the Nebraska statute banning it.
I don’t have much else to say about this case. I don’t dispute at all that its result can reasonably be thought to be dictated by Roe and Casey. And I certainly don’t contend that what partial-birth abortion yields—a dead baby—is any different from what other methods of abortion yield.
I would instead merely submit that this case ought to make manifest to any but the most jaded conscience the sheer barbarity being done in the name of the Constitution in a country dedicated—at its founding, at least—to the self-evident truth that all human beings “are endowed by their Creator” with an unalienable right to life.
Despite the fact that the abortion issue was being worked out state-by-state, the Supreme Court purported to resolve the abortion issue, once and for all and on a nationwide basis, in its 1973 decision in Roe. Instead, as Justice Scalia has correctly observed, the Court “fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics” ever since. In 1992, the five-Justice majority in Casey “call[ed] the contending sides [on abortion] to end their national division by accepting” what it implausibly claimed was “a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” Thirteen years later, the abortion issue remains as contentious and divisive as ever.
As Justice Scalia suggested in his dissent in Casey, Chief Justice Taney surely believed that his Dred Scott opinion would resolve, once and for all, the slavery question. But, Scalia continued:
“It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved—an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation—can be ‘speedily and finally settled’ by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be.… Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
“We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.” 505 U.S. at 1002.
As increasing numbers of observers across the political spectrum are coming to recognize, Justice Scalia’s prescription in Casey remains entirely sound, both as a matter of constitutional law and of judicial statesmanship. If the American people are going to be permitted to exercise their authority as citizens, then all Americans, whatever their views on abortion, should recognize that the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional power grab on this issue must end and that the political issue of whether and how to regulate abortions should be returned where it belongs—to the people and to the political processes in the states.
in Brooklyn, New York ruled that various Roman Catholic entities in the New York area had legal standing to pursue their challenge to the so-called “HHS Mandate,” a series of federal regulations requiring virtually all employers to pay for their employees’ contraception, sterilization, and early abortion-inducing drugs. read more
Mitt Romney is the man for the moment. His career history indicates that he’s never met a challenge he hasn’t overcome. From his personal life to his business record, whether saving the Salt Lake City Olympics or serving as Massachusetts governor, he has excelled. Now, he is willing to take on the major challenges facing America that threaten the immediate and long-term well-being of the nation.
Looking back, certain leaders — George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan immediately come to mind — emerged at a time when our nation desperately needed a man with unique gifts and abilities. Critical times require exceptional individuals, leaders whose character, abilities and experience equip them to tackle the nation’s problems. They lead not for political expediency, their own glory or to build up their own egos, but for the sake of the nation’s future. History is replete with instances when a particular leader made, for good or ill, an enormous difference morally, socially and economically.
Numerous pundits are saying that never in the history of America has there been such a clear choice between two different philosophies as in the worldviews of the two 2012 presidential candidates. The stakes of this election are enormous.
President Obama has made it clear that he wants America to look more like Europe. He has apologized for what he calls the nation’s past mistakes. He told a Russian leader that he would have “more flexibility” to work with other nations during his second term, when he didn’t have to face re-election. He has distanced the United States from both Great Britain and Israel, two of our strongest and closest allies. Every day, revelations about Benghazi, Libya, are looking more horrific and disturbing in what they tell us about the state of our foreign affairs. read more
What do you think of this post?
Please give as you are able and encourage others to help us help the USA!