Saturday, the 7th day, is the Sabbath according to Jews and most Bible believing Christians. Today’s Sabbath, savage Muslim monsters calmly and cruelly continued their murderous barbarism under the guise of their “Peaceful” theocratic ruse. ~ USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Against Tyranny With Truth” Pro-Israel God Bless Shoebat & his prayer warriors around the world IJN+
Muslims Take Nine Innocent Children, And Slaughter All Of Them
By Theodore Shoebat
May 16, 2015
Muslims in the Syrian city of Palmyra, all members of ISIS, took nine children and slaughtered all of them. The nine children were amongst twenty three other captives who were murdered, and ten of them were ritually beheaded (as Shoebat.com reported) . According to one report:
Extremists from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militant group executed at least 23 civilians on Friday as they advanced towards Syria’s ancient desert metropolis of Palmyra, a monitoring group said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said nine children were among the 23 shot dead by ISIS militants near the Unesco world heritage site.
“The Islamic State group executed by gunfire 23 civilians, including nine children, in the village of Amiriyeh, north of Tadmor,” Observatory chief Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.
Palmyra, which means City of Palms, is known in Arabic as Tadmor, or City of Dates.
Abdel Rahman said family members of government employees were among those murdered.
Thank you all for being here. It’s great to be in Texas, the Lone Star State. The one star in the Texan flag represents all the free Western world needs today: defiance, pride and independence.
It is no coincidence that we are in Garland, Texas, tonight. It is here that, three months ago, shortly after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Islamic activists convened to demand that free speech be curtailed. They want to prohibit cartoons, books and films which they find insulting.
Our answer is clear:
Don’t mess with Texas!
Don’t mess with the free West!
Don’t mess with our freedom of speech!
Friends, allow me to thank Pamela Geller for organizing this exhibition.
Pamela is an extraordinary woman. I only have a few heroes, but Pamela certainly is one of them. Let us give her a big applause!
My friends, you are all winners. Everybody present here tonight deserves respect, just for being here.
The cartoonists, the participants in this Muhammad contest all did fantastic work. All of you are not only talented but also very brave. For Islam has put a death sentence on depicting Muhammad. But this has not frightened you. And even if it did, it has not stopped you. Because you believe in freedom of speech.
I applaud you for that.
However, there can be only one winner of the contest. And that is, as you already know, Bosch Fawstin.
Bosch knows what he is talking and cartooning about, being a former – or in his own words recovered – Muslim.
I have known the fantastic work of Bosch – who also created the anti-jihad superhero Pigman – for many years already and I want to congratulate him for his bravery and excellent work and winning the contest today.
Your statement, my statement, the statement of every single person present in this room here tonight is clear: We will never allow barbarism, we will never allow Islam to rob us of our freedom of speech! Never!
I know from my own experience how dangerous it is to stand for this freedom. I know how dangerous it is to speak the truth about Islam.
I am on death lists of Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban and terrorists from ISIS because I tell people the truth about Islam. Islam has declared war on us, on our Judeo-Christian civilization. Islam wants to rob us of the freedoms and liberties. Islam and freedom are totally incompatible.
I am a politician, but cartoonists, like my good friends the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, are also on the death list. Both Kurt and Lars have already been the victims of murder attempts.
Another man on this list was the cartoonist Charb, editor of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. As we all know, he and 9 of his colleagues were murdered last January in Paris by followers of the religion of hate. According to Islamic Sharia law, they were all guilty of the same crime.
The crime of depicting Muhammad, the crime of defaming the so-called Prophet of Islam.
A crime punishable by death by the religion of death.
In order to show them that we will not have Islam dictate us the law, we are here with an exhibition of Muhammad cartoons.
We are here in defiance of Islam.
We are here to defend our rights and stand for freedom of speech.
That is our duty.
As Ronald Reagan, your greatest president ever, said: “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
I am happy to say that nobody died while watching these cartoons.
This proves that, unlike jihadis, cartoons do not kill people.
Cartoons do not kill jihadis, but jihadis kill cartoonists.
That is a huge difference which we should never forget.
Huntington was wrong. It is not a clash of civilizations, but a clash between civilization and barbarism.
Our Judeo-Christian culture is far superior to the Islamic one.
I can give you a million reasons. But here is an important one.
We have got humor and they don’t.
There is no humor in Islam.
In 1979, ayatollah Khomeini devoted an entire radio broadcast to this topic: “Allah did not create man so that he could have fun,” the ayatollah said. “There are no jokes in Islam,” he added. “There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam.”
For once, the ayatollah was right.
Islam does not allow free speech, because free speech shows how evil and wrong Islam is.
And Islam does not allow humor, because humor shows how foolish and ridiculous it is.
You are extremely fortunate to live in America. Because you have a first amendment.
In Europe, it is not just the jihadis who go after you. The authorities do so, too.
In the Netherlands, I have been dragged to court on hate speech charges for speaking the truth about Islam. I was acquitted, but now the authorities are prosecuting me again.
We are harassed, but sympathizers of the Islamic State are left in peace. Last Summer, they took to the streets in The Hague. They carried swastikas and ISIS flags. They shouted “Death to the Jews.” And you know what? The authorities did nothing. We have weak leaders. Appeasers are ruling The Netherlands, Europe and the USA. We have to turn the tide and we will. New leadership is what we need to defend our freedom of speech and resist the ongoing Islamization of the West.
Today, many of our Western leaders want us to shut up.
When we tell the truth about Islam, they call it Islamophobia.
When cartoonists make drawings of Muhammad, they are accused of provoking people.
A few years ago, in my country, the Netherlands, the police even raided the house of a cartoonist.
In his address to the United Nations in 2012, President Obama said: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
But we say: The future must not belong to Islam!
Do you hear, Mr Obama? We say: No to Islam!!
Unlike President Obama and his European colleagues, we are not willing to sign away our freedom and independence.
The day we give away humor and freedom of speech is the day that we cease to exist as a free and independent people.
And that day will never come.
That is what this exhibition is all about!
From here we send a message to President Obama and all his colleagues: We will never submit!
We are not intimidated by Islam.
We will not be picking up swords and axes and breaking into people’s homes. But we will not remain silent either.
Moderation in the face of evil is evil. This is not what our age needs. We must uncap our pens; we must speak words of truth. We are facing a determined enemy who is striving through all means to destroy the West and snuff out our traditions of free thought, free speech, and our Judeo-Christian values. Make no mistake: if we fail, we will be enslaved. So the only option is to defend our freedom with all the energy we have. It’s time to be brave. It’s time to do our duty.
Instead of giving in to fear and adopt the Islamic taboo on depicting Muhammad, I propose that we draw another conclusion:
Lift the cause of the fear!
Let us de-islamize our societies!
No more Islam, no more mosques, no more Islamic schools. It is time for our own culture and heritage.
Let us liberate ourselves from tyranny.
That is another good reason why we are having this exhibition here today.
Depicting Muhammad is an act of liberation!
Let us hold similar exhibitions all over the United States and all over the free world. From Canada to Australia to Europe.
We need Pamela Geller everywhere in the world.
I invite you to come to the Netherlands with this exhibition. I will help you exhibit these cartoons in the Dutch parliament building.
We will never allow Islam to restrict freedom!
And we will never bow in the direction of Mecca!
I am not saying that there are no moderate Muslims. Fortunately, there are Muslims who do not live according to the Islamic commands. But there is no moderate Islam!
Not all Muslims are terrorists. But most terrorists today are Muslims.
That is why we say: The less Islam, the better!
The Islamic creed obliges one and a half billion people around the world to take Muhammad as their example.
He led a gang of robbers, who looted, raped and killed hundreds of people.
Historic sources describe orgies of inhumanity. An example is the genocide of the Jews of Medina in 627. One of the head choppers was Muhammad himself. Confronted with the lunacy of Islamic terrorists today, it is not hard to find out whom they get their inspiration from.
It is from Muhammad who – we have to tell the truth – was a warlord, a murderer and a pedophile
There is no turning back once one has become a Muslim. For even though article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that every person has the right to “change his religion or belief,” in Islam there is only a death penalty for leaving the faith.
So, let us expose Muhammad. Let us show the world what Islam truly is.
And let us support Muslims, like Bosch, who wish to leave Islam and liberate themselves from fear.
Apostates are heroes and more than ever they deserve the support of freedom loving people all over the world.
Muhammad fought and terrorized people with the sword.
We fight Muhammad and his followers with the pen.
And the pen will prove mightier than the sword.
Muhammad’s followers fight us with bloodbaths, but today here in Garland we fight them with humor.
Because bloodbaths enslave, while humor liberates.
Let me end by quoting Sam Houston, the founding father of this great state of Texas:
“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.”
May his words inspire us all today never to submit to Islamic barbarism.
Latest update 5:37 ET It is reported now that two incendiary devices were indeed imploded at approximately 5:00Am ET by EMP technology on the active crime scene site by the Garland PD Bomb squad assisted by their bomb robot at the Culwell center. The bomb squad has a special van in order to diffuse or detonate incendiary devices we do not yet know how the bomb squads plan to destroy the devices was employed.
Awaiting further details from bomb squad or spokesperson for Garland PD, Joe Harn
Developing Update 5:25AM ET: This investigative journalist is awaiting official confirmation from Garland PD spokesperson, Joe Harn, that two incendiary devices were discovered on the scene at the Culwell Center in Garland Texas and detonated allegedly by EMP technology from Garland PD bomb squad assisted by a bomb robot. A policeman, Bruce Joiner, hired as part of an extra security team was shot in the ankle by one or both suspects during what appears to be a planned Islamic Jihadist attack. Officers returned fire killing both male suspects, Identities of suspects remain undisclosed at present awaiting access by morgue.
A reporter on the ground earlier heard two muffled separate detonations sometime in the past few hours after this evening’s attack just prior to the completion of The “Draw Muhammad” Free Speech Art competition with an award for 10,000K for the winner. ~ M. Katherine Orts wife to Pastor David A. Orts reporting for WorldwideBroadcasters in association with USDefenseLeague & PBN
Garland, TX – Northern Suburb of Dallas
Two suspects bodies lay untouched outside their vehicle in a parking lot out in front of The Curtis Culwell Center. The bodies and/or vehicle may be booby-trapped according to local Garland, Texas police officials. It is still an active shooting scene due to potential incendiary devices being present on the scene.
Police choppers have been flying overhead for a few hours. There was a rumored third suspect but nothing official has been confirmed.
A police bomb robot is currently scanning the location for bombs along with human police bomb technicians as of 1:15AM ET
A free speech event in the form of an Art Exhibition and “Draw Muhammad” art contest sponsored by Pamela Geller was the focus of Islamic Jihad tonight. It is still an active crime scene at The Curtis Colwell Center owned by the Garland Independent school district. The district titled the event as an anti Islamophobia event “Stand With Muhammad.” The two separate titles stand in stark contrast to each other. The “Draw Muhammad” title was given by Pamela Geller, an avid Anti-Sharia Anti Islamic pro free speech educator, speaker and author. Pro Free Speech advocate, Geller was the main organizer of the Garland free speech “Draw Muhammad” art event contest with the winner receiving 10,000K.
Pamela was interviewed about the incident and asked, “Aren’t you afraid?” She answered, “Aren’t you afraid of doing nothing?” “It is going to get worse…War is here.”
The “Draw Muhammad” free speech art competition was held at the Curtis Culwell Center which is rented often for public events in Garland, Texas. The location was specifically chosen by Pamela Geller in response to an anti free-speech Pro Sharia Islamic event which was held January 17th, 2015 at the Curtis Culwell center rented out by organizers sympathetic to the perpetrators of the Islamic Jihadist terror massacre which occurred at the Charlie Hebdo headquarters and which killed several writers including the editor for drawing and joking about Muhammad.
7:45pm CT: Officers tell Gabriel Roxas that two suspects were shot dead. Pamela Geller, an organizer of the event, spoke to to CBS 11 from lockdown via phone at 7:45p CT. In addition to echoing our ground team, she told a news producer, “I heard officers talking of possible explosions in backpacks and the car.”
8:11pm CT: Joe Harn of the Garland Police Department tells CBS 11 two men pulled up in vehicle on the roadway in front of the center and began firing at a Garland ISD security guard. Garland Police returned fire and killed both suspects.
8:11pm CT: Suspects’ vehicle being checked for explosives. It is scheduled to be detonated.
8:20pm CT: Authorities tell CBS 11 that SWAT will escort 48 people at a time out of arena soon, but many are parked in a now secured area and cannot access cars.
8:30pm CT: Garland ISD spokesman Chris Moore says one of their security guards was shot. His name is Bruce Joiner. He has been with the district for 8 years. He has non-life threatening injuries after being shot once in the leg. He’s in stable condition at a local hospital.
“An act of Jihad…to intimidate the American government. Walid Phares, an author, on the motives of Islamic Jihadists.
Katrina, an attendee of the “Draw Muhammad” free speech event was also part of an intercessory prayer group for the injured policeman. The group spontaneously prayed and sang with others, “God Bless America” on the scene as events unfolded. “I think here in The United States we ought to be taking this very seriously…” said Katrina.
Police spokesperson, Joe Harn, for Garland, TX, “We prepare for somebody like this, especially since some of our officers were hired as extra security for this standing event.” Approximately two hundred people attended the event.”
“There’s a lot of investigation to be done.” “We are working on the car. It stopped out in front…to the side of the building.” “So far as threats we’ve been monitoring this for a couple of months.” “We are not going to expose ourselves to a bomb inside the car. So yes the bodies are still outside…It was probably about 20 or 15 minutes before the event was going to be over when this event occurred…It could be hours before this crime scene is clear.”
God Bless & protect USA & God Bless Texas and all who gave Oaths to protect our nation. ~ M . Katherine Orts & husband Pastor David A. Orts founders of
USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth” & founders of
WorldWideBroadcasters.com “Bringing Truth To The Nations” for the Glory of God in Jesus Name
…It is probably true that in every faith, ordinary people will pick the parts they like best and practise those, while the scholars will work out an official version. In Islam the scholars had a particularly challenging task, given the mass of contradictory texts within the Qur’an. To meet this challenge they developed the rule of abrogation which states that wherever contradictions are found, the later-dated text abrogates the earlier one. To elucidate further the original intention of Muhammad, they referred to traditions (hadith) recording what he himself had said and done. Sadly for the rest of the world, both these methods led Islam away from peace and towards war. For the peaceable verses of the Qur’an are almost all earlier, dating from Muhammad’s time in Mecca, while those which advocate war and violence are almost all later, dating from after his flight to Medina. Though “jihad” has a variety of meanings including a spiritual struggle against sin, Muhammad’s own example shows clearly that he frequently interpreted jihad as literal warfare and himself ordered massacre, assassination and torture. From these sources the Islamic scholars developed a detailed theology dividing the world into two parts Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, with Muslims required to change Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam either through warfare or by da’wa (mission).
So the mantra “Islam is peace” which we hear repeated in the media so often is almost 1400 years out of date. It was only for about thirteen years that Islam was peace and nothing but peace. From 622 onwards, it became increasingly aggressive, albeit with periods of peaceful co-existence particularly in colonial times, when the theology of war was not dominant. For today’s radical Muslims – just as for the medieval jurists who developed classical Islam – it would be truer to say “Islam is war”. One of the most radical Islamic groups in Britain, al-Ghurabaa, stated in the wake of the two London bombings, “Any Muslim that denies that terror is a part of Islam is kafir.” A kafir is an unbeliever (i.e. a non-Muslim), a term of gross insult.
“I’m going to Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission,” he said as he boarded his plane in Tel Aviv. “I feel that I am an emissary of all Israel’s citizens, even those who do not agree with me, and of the entire Jewish people,” ~Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu (Reuters)
spoken March 1st, 2015 as Benjamin “Bibi“ Netanyahu was boarding his plane from Israel to the United States in order to give a highly important speech Tuesday morning to our United States Congress.
Bibi’s speech before Congress will air on FoxNews Channel Tuesday morning. Check your local cable network for details
Mr. Netanyahu will be speaking on a topic of historic importance regarding Iran obtaining Nuclear weapons capabilities and Iran’s hostile intent to use those weapons to destroy Israel and even reach The United States of America. The Obama administration has been aiding and abetting Iran and other Islamic nations and entities such as IS by not even speaking of the existence of radical Islam, Islamic Jihad or Iran and other Islamic nations to establish a one world order global Islamic Caliphate at the behest and approval of all 57 Islamic States who are members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) not loosely, affiliated with the UN (United Nations).
For the very first time in the history of our two nation’s allegiance, The President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, the 44th, has refused to meet with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Christian Broadcasting Network wrote of the historic significance of Israel’s Prime Minister, Netanyahu’s arrival and the apocalyptic Toranical and biblical timing of Bibi’s speech on the eve of Purim, a Holy day of Fasting and prayer for Jews and Christians who celebrate Holy Days in both of their faiths united by the Word.
In the days ahead, Jews around the world will celebrate Purim, a festival the Bible directs us to remember, when the Jewish people were delivered more than 2,000 years ago in Persia (modern day Iran) from an evil anti-Semite –Haman — who had manipulated the king into issuing a decree that would annihilate the Jews.
According to the biblical account, Esther, a Jew, and her cousin, Mordecai, who raised her, were the instruments of deliverance.
This Tuesday, just hours before the Purim holiday begins, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the U.S. Congress, at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, to explain why his country cannot tolerate the threat from another group of evil anti-Semites in Iran to annihilate the Jews: the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Ayatollah Khamenei and his government…
In the meantime, the gravity of the world situation and the daily reports of the persecution and murder of Christians and Jews has focused the attention of millions of Christians, as well as Jews, on what Netanyahu has to say. Many will pray and intercede, and others will fast, as Esther and her people did in biblical times.
We will pray for Israel, for Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s leaders, for wisdom for our own leaders, and for discernment to navigate the dangerous waters ahead. Who knows whether, as in the days of Esther and Mordecai, the address wasn’t appointed “for such a time as this…
Choice words and phrases excerpted and proper attribution given to authors/publishers and the rest (article portions not in block quotes) written by M. Katherine Orts & Pastor David A. Orts founders of USDefenseLeague.com “Pushing Back Tyranny With Truth“ for The Glory of God IJN+ #USA #ProIsrael #ShalomJerusalem
There seems to be a stealth master plan of sorts to utilize a variety of Federal Government agencies for nefarious purposes aimed at diminishing or, removing altogether, the rights of the average hard-working, tax paying American citizen. Every State in the union should be on high alert that they might be next for Federal mandated selection by any variety of Federal ‘tools’ such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to selectively pinpoint Americans staying true to the US Constitution and to Liberty within it’s well defined text as stated in The Declaration of Independence. We here at USDefenseLeague challenge all 50 States to immediately re-claim all non-ceded, or previously ceded lands and territories back from the increasing usurper of rights and freedoms the US Federal Government. We, like the Bundy’s believe that every State in our US Republic is sovereign. We are Federalists. That means we believe in State’s rights trumping Federal rights as per the 10th Amendment in our US Constitution.
So we begin, at the beginning, with environmentally micro-focused and extraordinarily mis-aligned executor of all things Federal, the current US Senate Majority Leader (D-Nevada) Harry Reid. Senator Reid’s pet projects just can’t get any wilder or should we say carnivorous! Just look here: read more
America is the midst of an epidemic of racial mob violence and the media absolutely refuses to report it.
The solution however is not merely reporting on it, it is taking action in a visible, out in front of the crest of the wave, the danger zone which is the sweet spot where real progress (progressiveims) which is regresses societal change,
In the book, “White Girl Bleed a Lot,” author Colin Flaherty documented hundreds of examples of black mob violence in more than 70 cities big and small throughout the country
Many of the episodes are on YouTube. He also documented how the media and public officials ignore, condone, excuse and even lie about this wave of lawlessness.
There is a deep hatred that is manifested at anyone or anything these misguided, hatefilled thugs think is weaker, like this kid Walter Easly Twitter @SuckMy_Walt
There is nothing here but opportunity for the race card players AKA Democrats. USA is better than this.
God Bless the Borellis for speaking capital “T” truth to power.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. strongly condemned “stand your ground” laws Tuesday, saying the measures “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense” and may encourage “violent situations to escalate.”
The National Rifle Association was not pleased with Holder’s statements and released the following to Fox News:
Chris W. Cox, executive director NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, claimed Holder went too far in extending the debate to “stand-your-ground” laws.
“The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right,” he said in a statement. “To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.”
We applaud Mr. Donald Trump in pointing out the obvious. That political correctness has been eating away at USA’s Security at home and abroad via censoring free speech and preventing usage of common sense and US Constitutional principles to all things Islam or Muslim. Congresswoman Michele Bachmann revealed in her letter to Rep. Keith Ellison that USA has been and is, in grave danger of Radical Islam warring a Grand “Civilization Jihad” within our WH and US Government on US Soil at home and abroad! We wanted to revive an old clip of Mr. Donald Trump speaking to CBN News. In 2011, CBN News interviewed former Presidential nominee Donald Trump on his views pertaining to Islam and Muslims in particular. Mr. Trump told CBN news and had also told The O’Reilly Factor, that “There is a Muslim problem.” We also love that Dennis Miller gave Donald Trump a verbal High Five to Trump on O’Reilly! -PBN read more
God Bless Former Congressman Allen West! There is indeed no separation of church and state in the US Constitution, The Federalist Papers or The Declaration of Independence. The well known, yet gravely misused and grossly abused mantra, is all based upon a letter from the Danbury CT Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson asking for clarification on the churches standing with the State. Jefferson assured the Baptist Association there would be a separation between the church and the state meaning the State Head would not also be the Church Head. The Triune Judeo Christian Church was FREE to worship as they desired without the State telling them how and when and where to Worship. So America, do you see, now, in the present time how this verbiage has been so completely twisted from its original explanatory intent? And one more thing, USA is still a Christian nation. Islam is a government and is not a religion. It is a Political Militant Ideology bent on usurping all of Western Civilizations Freedoms. Islam never grants Freedom, to its followers or its opposition, only death, to its Sharia compliant Islamic Extremist Jihadist followers and those who happen to be in their path. We are indeed in a Global War on Terror and all true Believers in The Way must stand and “Be Strong & Courageous” as Joshua. -PBN
UPDATE: Obama and his masses conducting evil against the states.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Obama administration has delayed a decision on TransCanada Corp’s rerouted Keystone XL oil pipeline until after March, even though Nebraska’s governor on Tuesday approved a plan for part of the line running through his state.
“We don’t anticipate being able to conclude our own review before the end of the first quarter of this year,” said Victoria Nuland, a spokeswoman at the State Department, which had previously said it would make a decision by that deadline. Full post
God Bless Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman! TransCanada just got final approval to build its pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta all the way to the Gulf Coast of Texas. Done.
Obama rejected the broader[Keystone XL] plan, saying the pipeline needed to be rerouted around Nebraska’s sensitive Sand Hills region. For that project, TransCanada needs presidential approval because it crosses an international border. The shorter portion only requires permits from state and federal agencies. TransCanada said the final of three permits it needed from the Army Corps of Engineers had been approved. The line from Cushing will help relieve a bottleneck at the Oklahoma refinery.
The governor approved a revised route for the Canada-to-Texas pipeline which his office said would avoid environmentally sensitive areas.
“Construction and operation of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, with the mitigation and commitments from Keystone would have minimal environmental impacts in Nebraska,” he wrote in a letter to Obama and Clinton.
The decision on final approval now rests with the Obama administration. The State Department is expected to decide within the next few months whether to permit the project to go forward — Heineman’s approval puts Obama in a difficult political spot.
The president had previously cited the Nebraska’s concerns about the pipeline as a key obstacle to approving the pipeline. At the same time, the president was able assuage the concerns of major environmental groups who not only voiced concern about the potential impact of a spill but also the emissions created by extracting and refining oil from what are known as oil sands in Canada.
After Obama in his inaugural address pledged to take action on climate change, the Sierra Club said it was “heartened” by Obama’s remarks and again urged the administration to reject “the dangerous tar sands pipeline.”
But supporters — including some in the president’s own party — have downplayed the environment impact and stressed the economic benefits the pipeline could bring. The pipeline is backed by the unions, and has been heavily promoted by Canadian officials. In Heineman’s letter, the governor said construction in Nebraska would yield $418 million in economic benefits.
Asked about the Nebraska governor’s decision Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney noted the State Department was still reviewing the issue.
“There are stages in this process. … I don’t want to get ahead of that process,” Carney said.
There are other hurdles beyond the federal government’s approval — needed because the pipeline crosses the U.S.-Canada border. A state court case has challenged the law that gives Heineman the power to approve such plans.
The American Petroleum Institute hailed the Nebraska decision Tuesday as a major step.
“Another major hurdle has been cleared,” API Executive Vice President Marty Durbin said. “With the approval from Nebraska in hand, the president can be confident that the remaining environmental concerns have been addressed.”
The governor said the new route would avoid the sensitive Sand Hills region, though would “cross” a vital aquifer. The governor expressed confidence that enough protections were in place to allow the project to go forward.
Publisher’s Note: 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.-PBN
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.