America’s Black Monday

On January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the Constitution and American jurisprudence from which we’ve yet to recover. That was the day when seven black-robed justices overstepped their authority and plucked a right to abortion from the 14th Amendment, where no such right had previously existed.

Wading through judicial opinions is taxing even for those schooled in law and legal precedent. For the rest of us, we have about as much chance to comprehend this maze of legalese and obscure rulings as we do of deciphering faded Egyptian hieroglyphics. The endless references and cross-references confuse with regularity, even if not intentionally meant to do so. Yet even the slightest diligence, research and application of common sense will reveal Roe v. Wade for the fallacy it is.

The plaintiff in Roe v. Wade alleged that Texas’ abortion laws, as they existed in 1971, violated privacy guarantees found in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. While there’s no doubt that Americans enjoy the privacy and freedom to determine their sexual activities--we owe deference not to governments but to Divine Authority or personal conscience for our intimate choices--there’s neither reference nor inference to abortion in the U.S. Constitution. That would necessarily include the cited amendments. The U.S. Constitution therefore grants no authority to the federal government to act on the matter of abortion.

One may attempt to form a case for federal oversight based on the authority to regulate interstate commerce found in the Constitution’s Article One, Section Eight, a clause already bastardized beyond imagination. But in the Roe complaint there was no interstate commerce to regulate, rendering even an oblique application of the commerce clause a moot point.

Abortion is not a subject in which the federal government enjoys authority to speak, regulate, or legislate. The Constitution’s silence becomes each state’s gain. The Tenth Amendment explicitly grants authority to the states or to the people in all areas where the central government is not specifically authorized to act. Therefore Texas, and all other states, reserves the right to regulate abortion to whatever extent represents the ideals, perceptions and morals of their citizens.

Ample precedence existed before the fateful Roe v. Wade decision to support the state’s rights view on abortion regulation. Each state had governed abortion as it saw fit for well over a century before the Supreme Court inserted itself into the equation. As Justice William Rehnquist cited in Section II of his dissent:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."

There was no longstanding precedence affirming abortion as a fundamental human liberty that would warrant Court action in its defense. A right to abort a pregnancy is not a self-evident truth, as is the right to speak freely, to petition the government, or to bear arms in protection of self, family and liberty. Ironically, these latter liberties--all essential--are under constant assault from the very factions that consider abortion rights an integral part of a document in which no such right appears.

The fact that states had possessed authority over abortion law until the Roe decision further refutes the idea of abortion being a fundamental constitutional liberty. States had exercised regulatory authority over the performance of abortions since prior to the Civil War, which necessarily meant before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. It cannot be said that the drafters of said Amendment then intended to remove from the states authority over subjects not addressed in its language.

One of the chief arguments Roe supporters present is the need for easy abortion to protect a mother’s life. On the surface this reasoning has validity. There’s no doubt that each person owns their life--at least in relation to their government and fellow man--and cannot be legislated into surrendering that life without due process of law. This is essential to liberty and enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, only pure ignorance on the part of abortion supporters can justify citing the protection of the mother’s life in defense of Roe.

The Texas law that Roe v. Wade overturned did not outlaw abortions under all circumstances. That reality circumvents the most cited argument for abortions, if indeed protecting the mother’s life is the Roe supporters’ prime concern, which is debatable. The overturned Texas statute, enacted in 1857, provided for an abortive remedy when the mother’s life was at risk. Thus the pro-abortion “life of the mother” argument is rendered moot, for no mother’s life was jeopardized by the Texas law. This fact was recognized not in the Rehnquist dissent but in Section 1 of Blackmun’s majority decision.

Another of Blackmun’s rationale seems equally contradictory. In Section VI (4), Blackmun cited English law in evidence for his opinion. The British Parliament had passed legislation in 1967 that greatly liberalized the use of abortion as a medical treatment. In addition to protecting the mother’s life, the British law also took into account the mother’s physical and mental health as well as the prospects of both for the fetus. In other words, the British legislated in favor of abortion on demand. Blackmun basically inserted the British law into the U.S. legal system, subverting state authority and the legislative process.

Abortion remains a divisive issue mainly because of Blackmun’s activism. Notice that the British altered their abortion laws through their elected representatives. The various states comprising the United States saw their abortion laws altered by judicial diktat. The American people had no voice whatsoever in the direction an issue of such moral, personal and religious sensitivity would progress. It was imposed sans the consent of the governed, a fundamental overstep of judicial and federal authority.

The best avenue for addressing the abortion issue to everyone’s satisfaction is to overturn Roe v. Wade in its entirety. The ruling represents a poor application of the Constitution, if indeed the states have sovereign authority over all powers not delegated to the central government nor constitutionally prohibited to the states and the people. And they do, for although the Tenth Amendment is routinely compromised and ignored, it hasn’t been repealed.

Without Roe v. Wade each state enjoys sovereign authority to establish abortion protocols representative of their citizens’ moral and ethical conscience. Under such a scenario people can move to a state where their positions are adequately represented, whether their views on abortion side with the Southern Baptist Convention or the National Organization of Women. Under the current condition, everyone must live under the onerous decision rendered by Blackmun and his six activist colleagues.

Abortion law under Roe v. Wade does not reflect the consent of the governed. It represents the tyranny of the judiciary and it’s wholly at odds with both the concept of a free people and the idea of a representative republic of sovereign states.

“Choose Life” license plates create a stir

Twenty-one states have issued “Choose Life” license plates. Four states have approved the plates and legislation is pending in sixteen others. Where does North Carolina fit in, and why do the plates draw opposition in some circles?

Legislation to issue a pro-life license plate was introduced in both the North Carolina Senate (S210) and House (H168) in February, 2009. The bills are identical. Profits from the “Choose Life” plate go to non-governmental agencies that provide counseling and assistance to pregnant women. Most important, Section 4 of both bills stipulates that funds generated by the sale of the plates cannot be given to any entity that “provides, promotes, counsels, or refers for abortion.”

The House version has gathered dust in the Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House Committee since the day after its filing. Rep. Bill Owens (D), the committee chair, has refused to move the bill. S210 has fared no better in the Senate Finance Committee, chaired by Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D) from Mecklenburg County. While Owens’ opinion on abortion is obscure, Clodfelter’s is crystal clear. He received NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina’s endorsement during the 2008 election cycle.

Owens and Clodfelter may have unprejudiced reasons for their inaction on “Choose Life” plates. The same can’t be said for Planned Parenthood (PPFA), a vehement opponent of pro-life tags. Their disapproval is spelled out in dollars and cents. Planned Parenthood loathes the idea of proceeds from a government issued license plate supporting organizations that oppose indiscriminate abortion.

What gall! When we follow the money trail we find that Planned Parenthood has no standing to criticize “Choose Life” license plates or the money they supply to pro-life organizations.

Florida began offering the pro-life tags in August of 2000, with each tag delivering $20 to qualified recipients. By April 2010 the Sunshine State had issued or renewed nearly 360,000 “Choose Life” plates, generating over $7 million for Florida’s pro-life community. That’s why Planned Parenthood opposes these tags. Ironically, it’s also why their protests ring hollow.

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report (p.9), its offices performed 305,310 abortions in 2007. At the median price of $625 per procedure, PPFA grossed more than $190 million from abortion alone. Add to that the $350 million in government grants and funding that PPFA draws annually and the monies generated by the “Choose Life” tags are but a pittance.

Each of the 50 states would have to yield annually what Florida’s “Choose Life” tag produced over a 10-year period just to match PPFA’s yearly government receipts. In fact, Planned Parenthood receives half of its annual revenue from the combination of abortion and government ($540 million). PPFA’s opposition to “Choose Life” tags based on public funding of the pro-life message is therefore dismissible.

Furthermore, “Choose Life” plates force no one to promote a pro-life message. People who don’t want to fund pro-life causes can choose another plate design. Taxpayer’s don’t foot the bill for the “Choose Life” tag, either. Only the profit goes to pro-life causes, meaning the issue price covers the cost of producing the special plate.

Planned Parenthood can’t make that claim. Since PPFA receives funding directly from government, pro-life taxpayers are forced to finance a cause they consider utterly reprehensible.

“Choose Life” license plates are a legitimate outlet for a worthy, peaceful position. S210 and H168 shouldn’t stagnate in committee. They shouldn’t wither due to the inaction of biased or disinterested committee chairs. And the “Choose Life” tag surely shouldn’t succumb to pressure from the duplicitous Planned Parenthood.

Truth cannot be denied

Truth prevails whenever it confronts fallacy, for falsehood cannot stand fact. Now for a fact. No one with a heart can excuse abortion once they’re exposed to its reality. To prove this point let me present Abby Johnson, for whom reality and conscience collided in a big way.

Abby’s now the target of a Planned Parenthood restraining order. Of course, anyone who protests outside an abortion clinic will draw the ire of Planned Parenthood. But Abby isn’t the typical pro-life activist. She is an abortion industry insider. Until recently, Abby Johnson worked at the Planned Parenthood facility in Bryan, Texas. While there she helped women receive the 60 to 80 abortions that the clinic performed each month. Those abortions are, according to Johnson, the most lucrative service the clinic renders.

But Planned Parenthood has a problem; a picture is worth a thousand words. Ms. Johnson’s outlook changed when the wonders of the ultrasound allowed her to witness an abortion firsthand. She knew right away that she was in the wrong line of work. Abby is now associated with the Coalition for Life and pickets the clinic where she once facilitated abortion.

“When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart . . . a spiritual conversion.”

King Solomon, writing in Ecclesiastes, recognized that neither the wise nor the fool could escape error. But that in itself doesn’t make foolishness preferable or excusable. In Ecclesiastes 2:13 Solomon wrote, “I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.”

Light’s presence is darkness’ elimination. So, too, will truth and wisdom repudiate falsehood and foolishness. Those who have given their time and efforts to defend life have long known this fundamental truth. We can now count Abby Johnson--a former Planned Parenthood, pro-abortion activist--in our number. Welcome aboard, Abby. And thank God!

Who was Margaret Sanger?

Mention Margaret Sanger and you’ll start a debate, perhaps a heated argument. Sanger is the greatest heroine since Florence Nightingale to some people and the worst villain since Attila the Hun to others.

So, what could produce such diametrically opposed opinions of the same person? Let’s look and see.

Sanger’s supporters refer to her nursing work with poor women on New York’s Lower East Side during the early part of the 20th Century. They see compassion in her attempts to help poor women prevent the unintended pregnancies that so often produced family poverty. From this perspective, Margaret Sanger sounds fit to be Mother Theresa’s big sister.

Detractors consider Sanger a racist, atheist and eugenicist. Oh, and we’ll toss in adulteress at no extra charge. They point to her very writings for their evidence. Supposedly, Sanger referred to blacks and immigrants as “human weeds.” She advocated an application and licensing system for child-bearing and promoted birth control as a tool for creating “a race of thoroughbreds.”

Sometimes it can be difficult to separate truth from fiction. Sanger was certainly an advocate of “family planning” and no opponent of abortion. She also wrote in the May, 1919 issue of Birth Control Review that women with large families most often became “unfit breeders of the unfit.” Her writings in The Point of Civilization add to her reputation as a eugenicist.

Conversely, Sanger’s other writings support the idea that abortion, while not necessarily life-threatening for the mother, isn’t the no consequences decision that today’s pro-choice activists claim. That’s certainly true. Few women who’ve undergone abortions live without the emotional scars. Yet alleged feminists and family planners, most notably Planned Parenthood, treat abortion with the same indifference as taking out the household garbage.

Whether or not Margaret Sanger would approve the contemporary Planned Parenthood attitude toward abortion may be debatable. But the fact that she founded the organization isn’t debatable. Let’s see what her brainchild has become.

Planned Parenthood clinics have become America’s go-to guys when it comes to abortion, and they do it with your tax money. According to the Christian Examiner, $305 million tax dollars went to Planned Parenthood in 2006 despite the organization having turned a profit of $900 million. They were receiving bailouts when bailouts weren’t cool.

The family planning federation didn’t fare badly in its 2008 fiscal year, either. According to Planned Parenthood’s annual report the organization produced total revenues of over $1 billion, “excess revenue over expenses” of $85 million and year end net assets of $1.014 billion. Not too shabby for a non-profit, huh?

To be fair, Planned Parenthood provides more services that just abortions. Their clinics perform cancer screenings and STD treatments. Pregnancy tests are also conducted. However, pregnancy tests can be had at a Crisis Pregnancy Center, too. And you won’t find a CPC providing the 305,310 abortions that Planned Parenthood performed in 2007, which was an increase of over 15,000 from the previous year.

At a median price of $625 per first trimester abortion, Planned Parenthood brought in a gross receipt of more than $190 million in one year from abortion alone. Do we see why they so defend the procedure?

What’s more, Planned Parenthood’s claim of adoption referrals, while technically correct, is misleading. The organization boasts, on page eight of its annual report, that adoption referrals increased 100% from 2006 to 2007. According that report, only 4,912 adoption referrals were made in 2007. That’s 62 abortions for every single adoption referral. Read it for what you will.

You can decide for yourself whether the late Margaret Sanger was some kind of misunderstood saint or deranged societal engineer. However, she created Planned Parenthood, an organization that is anything but saintly. In fact, it has become a monster of the first order.

Good work has its enemies

It is said that no good deed goes unpunished. That adage is holding true for Crisis Pregnancy Centers. In fact, some CPC opponents are downright maniacal.

The National Organization of Women has accused CPCs of using scare tactics on pregnant women and disseminating false information. They claim CPC volunteers have harassed, intimidated and manipulated women, even to the point of lying about pregnancy test results so clients won’t seek abortions afterwards.

And get this, NOW says the CPC’s prime interest is sharing Christ and preventing abortions. I guess that’s meant to be an insult. But it’s sort of like insulting a little boy by saying his main interests are playing baseball and riding bikes.

It’s hard to believe that a ministry as simple, straightforward and uncontroversial as the CPCs could draw such venom from anyone, especially a group that claims to put women’s health first. Of course, NOW isn’t about women or their health. NOW is about preserving abortion-on-demand at any cost.

I suppose their shrill fabrications should be expected; it’s exactly what Jesus Christ promised. “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you,” Christ said in John 15:18. And in Matthew 10:24, “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.”

However, despite Christ’s promises of struggle, there’s another Scriptural passage that provides comfort for CPC workers who face unfounded criticisms, “lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” Good works may not go unpunished in this life. But they don’t go unrewarded in the next one, either.

Intimidation reigns after Tiller’s death

Intimidation is an effective tactic. If one side of a debate can force the opposition to abandon their beliefs, or to shrink from defending them, the first side is a step closer to victory. Since George Tiller’s death, intimidation has become the pro-abortion community’s preferred strategy.

Ellen Goodman, a pro-choice columnist for the Boston Globe, blamed Tiller’s death directly on the entire pro-life movement. Every person who calls abortion-on-demand what it is—the murder of an innocent child—is, in her eyes, responsible for lighting the shooter’s fuse.

No pro-lifer wants to be associated with a murderer. Ellen Goodman and her ilk understand this perfectly and they’re using it to their advantage. They know that they can gain an upper hand if they can silence our voice by linking our cause with Tiller’s death. We can’t allow that to happen.

Our opposition to George Tiller’s murder is no reason for us to defend or excuse what he did with his life. When we denounce his murder and disavow responsibility for it we are entirely consistent with our pro-life message. However, abortion supporters (such as Goodman) must condemn Tiller’s death while defending the deaths Tiller caused. Our position is consistent, rational and defensible. Theirs is not.

The pro-abortion use of Tiller’s death is a test we must pass. We cannot be intimidated. We cannot abandon our principles in the face of false accusations. We cannot be silenced and we cannot shrink from defending innocent life. Ours is the righteous cause.

Abortionist’s murder is enigmatic for pro-lifers

Self-defense excluded, are we--as mere human beings--empowered to defend the innocent by taking a life without the benefit of trial? Let’s consider a couple of scenarios.

First, let’s assume that a serial killer is on the loose. You have reason to believe the killer is your neighbor. Quite correctly, you contact the authorities. But the subsequent investigation doesn’t produce enough evidence for a conviction and the suspected killer walks free.

You remain convinced that the neighbor is guilty and will kill again. Are you within the bounds of righteousness to take that life in order to spare the future victims?
Now let’s consider a second scenario.

Suppose you were a guard assigned to Auschwitz during World War II. You witness the daily atrocities Josef Mengele commits on the Jewish children imprisoned there. You’ve seen his brutal murders and his ghastly human experiments. And there’s no legal way to stop him.

Is it proper for a just person to kill Mengele, thus preventing the maiming and murder of untold numbers of men, women and children?

In the first scenario there’s no firsthand knowledge of wrong-doing. There isn’t sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but the possibility for a legal remedy remains. There’s also the old argument that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Even though killing your neighbor may preserve an innocent life, there are legal avenues for dealing with the suspect that haven’t been exhausted. Therefore, unless you are attacked, you cannot legitimately pronounce yourself judge, jury and executioner.

Conversely, if you were the Auschwitz guard no one would’ve condemned you for killing the Nazi “Angel of Death.” There was no other viable option for stopping his barbarism.

Applying these scenarios to the killing of abortionist George Tiller--a man responsible for killing thousands of unborn babies--presents pro-lifers with some interesting questions.

Did the shooter commit an act of murder? Did he take a life without the benefit of a legal decision in a society where such a verdict remained possible? Or, did the shooter’s act preserve innocent life, like the Auschwitz guard’s imaginary killing of Josef Mengele?

We must conclude that Tiller’s death fit’s the first scenario. As troubling and divisive as abortion on demand is, there is still the opportunity to deal with the issue through legal channels. Therefore, the shooter violated both George Tiller’s right to life and the pro-life message itself.

However, just as surely as two wrongs don’t make a right, another old argument applies here. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Tiller’s murder is no reason for joy by any means. Yet his life and medical practice weren’t cause for celebration either. Tiller’s practice was directly responsible for at least 250 late-term abortions each year. For those services Tiller received over a million dollars. And that doesn’t include the number of “normal” abortions performed at Tiller’s clinic.

Pro-abortion activists have eulogized Tiller as if he were Albert Schweitzer. They even called for a national day of mourning in his honor. But their praise is an empty talking point. And it exemplifies their scorn for the thousands of unborn babies who died at Tiller’s hand.

George Tiller was no Dr. Schweitzer. In fact, he had more in common with Josef Mengele.

Tiller’s murder presents an interesting enigma for proponents of innocent life. On one hand, Tiller will not render his “services” again. On the other hand, the way he was stopped violates the core principles of the pro-life message. Yet it is entirely consistent for pro-life organizations to denounce Tiller’s murder while refusing to defend his life.

Pro-abortion activists face a deeper conundrum. They must reconcile their outrage over George Tiller’s murder while defending his daily regimen of death.

Even in this complex situation the pro-life message remains far more consistent and much easier to defend.