SCOTUS Draft Opinion overturns Roe v Wade. In the Church there is something that must be overturned.

I have a lot of mail today about the leaked 1st Draft of the SCOTUS’ majority “Opinion of the Court signed by Justice Alito.   It is a fine demolition of Roe v. Wade, an exposition of the obvious and well known, well expressed.

The case in question is, for shorthand, called: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. I supposed that will become “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health” or simply “Dobbs“.

You should read the DRAFT Opinion – HERE

A quote:

‘We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)

The right to abortion docs not fall within this category.

There it is.  And…

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority. Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of
abortion to the people’s elected representatives.

Clear.

And this…

‘Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. We mention three. In Brown. v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities. 347 U.S. 483, 488 (1954). In so doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. …

Plessy v. Ferguson, that abomination upholding racial segregation, was effectively overturned by Brown v. Board.

Sometimes lawmakers simply get things wrong, for whatever reason or ideology they are shackled by.  Shouting “Stare decisis!” isn’t good enough in some cases.  

Traditionis custodes, the Plessy of the Francis Legacy, should be overturned, quam primum

In the Church there is no juridical mechanism of recourse by which plaintiffs can make a case again Traditionis.  However, that doesn’t mean that TC can’t be tried in the court of opinion, and opinion expressed to authority.  As a matter of fact, the faithful are urged in Canon Law to do so

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

TC is a miscarriage of justice and charity and it should be reversed.

Consider the Custos Traditionis initiative.

HERE

I propose…

… an informal association of prayer and penance dedicated to two petitions offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which are

  • the softening of hearts of those interpreting Traditionis custodes (bishops, Roman officials);
  • the overturning of, or reversal of, or major amendment of Traditionis custodes.

I ask you to join with others, making an informal but serious pledge to do two things for the two intentions, above.

YOUR COMMITTMENT…

  • recite the beautiful and powerful Memorare prayer DAILY;
  • make an act of physical or material penance for the two intentions ONCE A WEEK.

Back to Dobbs for a moment.

Swap out some term in this additional excerpt from The Draft Opinion:

The nature of the Court’s error. An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution is always important, but some are ‘more damaging than others. ‘The infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, supra, was one such decision. …

For reasons already explained, Roe‘s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed.

Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, and Casey perpetuated its errors, and the errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 222 (White, J., dissenting), the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people.

When we get something wrong, it is folly simply to blunder along on the same course.  When the blunder affects others, the rational, just, charitable thing to do is to retrace steps back to the blunder and make a correction.

As the Draft Opinion states:

The Court has no authority to decree that an erroneous precedent is permanently exempt from evaluation under traditional stare decisis principles. A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command. If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy and Lochner [concerning employee rights] would still be the law. That is not how stare decisis operates.

 

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Comments

  1. So, is the purpose of the leaked Supreme Court draft to get enough justices to change their votes and reverse the reversal of Roe and its progeny? Is this the signal to the shock troops to prepare to launch a violent reaction throughout the country, in the event enough justices are not intimidated? The forces of abortion are not going to take a defeat lying down. We should be begging God to stop all this dead in its tracks.

  2. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    If “any such right must be [both] ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'” then there is no obvious sense in “return[ing] the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives”. That does not seem even a prudent ‘salami tactic’.

  3. iamlucky13 says:

    I like to think that the justices should not have to explain why an interpretive principle that is not a part of written law does not mean that an organization that makes a mistake is never permitted to correct that mistake.

    But it is a relief to have it said anyways.

    With that said, the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade in this specific manner does not in practical terms alter the situation much. While correcting the judicial overreach in inventing a right to privacy that despite not being enumerated was immediately held to rival the enumerated rights in significance is a step forward, the foundational error remains the determination that the right life only exists for those whom society decides it exists, and does not exist until it is affirmatively proven that society has granted those rights. It is truly a pity the majority did not have the integrity to cite the similar logic from Dred Scott v Sandford in their opinion.

    So the result will be, as noted in the majority opinion itself, that authority on the matter returns to the states or to Congress.

    Polls vary significantly depending how the question is asked, but there is consistently a strong majority who oppose restrictions on abortion. It’s not hard to guess how the next step is going to go.

  4. Maximillian says:

    “In the Church there is something that must be overturned.”

    Please live in the real world Fr Z. It will never be overturned.

    Bitter Fruit Award

  5. Kathleen10 says:

    The clerk who leaked it should be fired and lose their law license. We can’t have “leaks” which can only be to try to intimidate SCOTUS members. Such predictable thuggery. It’s thrilling SCOTUS refers to…the US Constitution! Imagine that.
    It is a superb thing to have Roe v Wade overturned. It would be great to imagine this will mean fewer dismembered babies, but in our state we already are codifying baby killing into our state laws. God forbid don’t slow down that baby killing machine, and now, these demons want to kill babies AFTER they are drawing breath and sweet life, babies ready to be loved and kissed and welcomed. This is no different from what the Aztecs did. Anybody who supports this will surely go to Hell and be with their friend, Satan.
    What common ground can Christians find with people who would do this evil thing, or really with people who would corrupt children of ANY age with sexual perversion, which is also so destructive for them. There are many ways to kill children.

  6. Pingback: VVEDNESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  7. grateful says:

    …”Never was it known that anyone who fled to Thy protection…”

  8. JonPatrick says:

    While I feel this ruling (if it actually happens as expected) is an important step, it will not actually have much effect on the number of abortions, since even the most restrictive state laws still allow the vast majority of them, and for the price of a bus ticket, those wishing a later term abortion would easily be able to travel to one of the blue states to procure one. As @iamlucky13 points out above we still have not dealt with the issue of the sanctity of life and the scientific fact that life begins at conception.

    As for Maximillian’s comment, I would say “never” is a long time, in fact I think that a move back to tradition is inevitable given the demographic situation in the Church. It likely won’t be in the short time I have left on this earth but it will happen.

  9. sjoseph371 says:

    It is good and all, and even appropriate to celebrate the SCOTUS decision to hopefully overturn RvW. HOWEVER, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, this is in no way the end, nor is it even the beginning of the end – it is merely the end of the beginning of the fight to rid humanity of the legalized sacrifices to Moloch. Now, there will be 50 individual fights that must be waged.

  10. KateD says:

    To what Father Z said in his post: Amen! Amen!!

    I’ll just add, it’s my understanding that the court knew Roe would have to be revisited and at least modified once medical technology advanced to answer the question of when life begins.

    This should not come as a surprise to anyone.

    And it’s looooong over due.

  11. KateD says:

    Now we just have to get involved at the state level and see that either by legislation or referendum we get rid of abortion.

  12. KateD says:

    Maxmillian,

    Don’t be such a sour puss! Be patient. God will not abandon us. This is an opportunity to exercise virtue. Embrace it joyfully.

  13. Not says:

    Besides Abortion being the most evil decision made, we must look at the legal aspects of overturning it. If the Federal Government rules Abortion is illegal, that goes for the whole country. States will try t0 ignore this and it will take good people to file suit against said states. Abortion has NEVER been the law of the land. Only congress can make law. They have recently tried twice to bring it to the floor and failed. Take a deep breath and think about ,what is the purpose of overturning abortion decision if we will still have abortion?

  14. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Don’t Look at Francis With FaithGoggles – The Stumbling Block

  15. TonyO says:

    Polls vary significantly depending how the question is asked, but there is consistently a strong majority who oppose restrictions on abortion.

    @ iamlucky13: as I understand it, the majority stands for the proposition that at least some abortions should be legal, but necessarily not all. There is a sizeable but minority group that believes that all abortions should be illegal, and a SMALLER minority that believes that all abortions definitively should be legal. Even in the latter category, there is ambiguity in that some people who initially say they think all abortions should be illegal are opposed to abortions taking place immediately before birth, when the child is full term and could easily survive a cesarean delivery. In many US states, if referendum votes were presented separately in an unbiased way, laws that legalize abortions during the 1st trimester and illegalize some more extreme cases (like those in the last month) would probably win by sizeable majorities. More’s the pity.

  16. KateD says:

    Tony O-

    What the decision does is it puts legislation of abortion back on the states.

    In conservative states, take it to the legislative bodies and in states like California, there needs to be a referendum, because that state legislature will never do the right thing. Californians need to mobilize like they did for the amendment to the state constitution on the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. Don’t look to compromise on the language. Abolish all abortion. History will confirm that was the correct thing to do whether it passes or not. You must push for legislation that God would approve of. Work to make things right and trust that God’s got your back and will magnify your efforts through His. He will speak to their hearts and work miracles for you. All you have to do is be a faithful and diligent servant.

    As to the question of the opinion of Americans, it’s split nearly 50/50. In a 2020 Gallup poll 48% of those asked self identified as “pro choice”, 46% self identified as “pro life”. Given margin of error, that is very close. However, my experience is that once you get to talking to people, even the really violent ones who scream and yell and swing and vandalize and throw drinks and food at people praying on the side walk, the vast majority aren’t really “pro choice”. Even the most rabid abortion supporters generally have this idea that 16 weeks is the cut off between what’s acceptable and what is not for having an abortion. I’d say the vast majority of Americans are against abortion after 4 months.

    Perhaps it’s because at the 4 month mark is when an ultra sound appointment is made and the sex of the child is confirmed? I don’t know. It seems rather arbitrary.

    That 4!month opinion is founded in supreme and intentional ignorance of fetal development. Most people’s understanding is ill informed. Their only exposure to any information being a planned parenthood agenda driven sex ed class in public school, they believe that the child is “just a lump of tissues”. They believe an abortion is just a heavy period. Once the vast majority of people are properly informed regarding the stages of fetal development, opinions change. Heartbeat is an easily achieved consensus. It’s difficult to deny that a child with a detectable heart beat is alive. It’s self evident even to the most ardent self identifying “pro choice”ers.

    At the end of the day, however, opinions are irrelevant. The objective scientific truth is that an individual human person is formed at the moment of conception, with a unique set of DNA. The dignity of each individual human being, regardless of their age, must be respected and they have a natural right to life, just like every other human person on the planet, which must be defended. What can be taken away from one class or group of people may be taken away from another. It is therefore, beyond simply being the right thing to do, it is in our own self interest to defend the natural rights of all human persons.

    If we seek to take half measures out of fear of loosing consensus, then we stand to make the same mistake as was made with slavery at the inception of this nation. That resulted in the continuation of an atrocity AND ended in a brutal civil war. Many of the societal problems which grieve our nation now can be traced back to that moment of cowardice when the founding fathers suspended their trust in the Almighty and placed man’s wisdom above God’s.

    Let’s not have history repeat itself.

  17. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear KateD,

    I really appreciated your comment. I never understood the rabid desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. This was simply a political maneuver back in the late 1980’s to bring Evangelicals into the Republican Party. Make no mistake – Roe is bad law for several reasons and it made me lose any faith I had in the wisdom of the Supreme Court, but it never was binding on any Christian to begin with. Back in the Scholastic period, four freedoms of Christians were recognize, three of which will not be perfectly realized in this life (freedom from want, etc.). One of them is freedom from the State, when it passes a law contrary to Christian teaching. Roe is not a law. It is a court decision about a law. It is a bad decision. It has no standing in Christian obedience.

    Nevertheless, overturning Roe is really only pushing the football down field. If abortion becomes a state’s right issue, again, given the change in moral understanding from the 1920’s, when abortion was illegal in every state until today, to when abortion will be split into pro- and anti- abortion states after Roe falls, all we are doing is re-setting the playing field for Civil War 2.0.

    In the end, the only proper solution is an amendment to the Constitution outlawing abortion, in the same manner as the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery, universally, in the U. S. Unfortunately, just as the thirteenth amendment could not be passed without the Civil War, neither will an anti-abortion amendment be passed without the shedding of blood, I fear. I hope it doesn’t come to this, but the pressure is building in exactly the same manner as it did with the slavery issue. Abortion, unlike slavery, is an inherent evil, always and everywhere. Historically, slavery was, how shall I say this, an intramural Protestant squabble that got out of hand. The Catholic anti-slavery position was established back in the 1600’s, although not always followed. Protestants, having no real guidance, were left to their own devices, with the predictable split that lead to the Civil War.

    Abortion is not like this. It is much worse, because the theology is settled (contrary to Nancy Pelosi) and the opposition is from pagans and Protestants who have yet to get their theological understanding in order. There are a lot of other sociological underpinnings to this issue, but I don’t have time to go into them.

    Needless to say, overturning Roe is interesting from a political perspective, but it misses the mark. The underlying psychological and theological lies underpinning the acceptance of abortion must be corrected and, unfortunately, contraception is the much more slippery target that must be shot through. We are nowhere near correcting the abortion issue and while Roe may be a touchstone for some, in the final analysis, its position in history has been blown out of proportion for the sake of political ambitions, I fear. The inability to separate or rather the desire to conflate politics and religion for the sake of ambition is going to put this country through another living hell. We need evangelists, not politicians. Abortion is, primarily, a theological issue that should be reflected in our politics, not the other way around. Politics does not lead to salvation and can not offer the forgiveness of sins. We need a theological revolution in this country, not a political one.

    The Chicken

  18. GregB says:

    The Masked Chicken: to me the whole point of judicial activism is to preempt the political process. That nine judges can wall off issues from the political process. Petition for redress of grievance can be short-circuited by court cases settled by judicial activism. That the judges can place themselves above the laws and the constitution that they are supposed to interpret. The laws and the constitution then are no longer able to serve as a check against judicial abuse of power. To me that is why Roe v. Wade is so toxic. Judicial activism is why judicial confirmation hearings have become so rancorous.

  19. The Masked Chicken says:

    Dear GregB,

    I agree that judicial activism, also called legal positivism, is a bad thing because judges don’t just decide if the law is just, but actively interpret the law so as to create a de facto variant of the law. They circumvent the will of the people. I, certainly, agree that this happened with Roe and the activist Blackmun court. The history of judicial activism is fascinating. It, really, began with Baker vs. Carr in 1962 (about re-districting) and caused Justice Charles Whittaker to have a nervous breakdown because he realized that Justice Warren was trying to write law from the bench. Justice Frankfurter was adamantly opposed to sticking the Court’s nose in legislative business. Whittaker had to recuse himself because the pressure put on him by the competing forces of the activist, Warren and the conservative, Frankfurter cause him to have a nervous breakdown. This led to him resigning from the Court and Warren was elected Chief Justice, leading to the first liberal activist Court. It was the Warren court that decided Griswold vs. Connecticut, starting the short slide to Roe. Up to 1962, there has been an unspoken agreement that the Supreme Court should stay out of politics. Baker vs. Carr broke that agreement.

    There are deep waters, here, because, obviously, the Constitution does not allow for this type of judicial abuse and the Founding Fathers, in my opinion, made it too hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. The checks against judicial abuse is among the weakest checks-and-balances in the Constitution (a point made by Judge Bork).

    That being said, abortion is not primarily a symptom of a political problem, but a theological problem, properly speaking. There were political protests during the sexual revolution, but the Revolution did not create laws making fornication a legal good (criminal laws are, still, theoretically, on the books in some states (Idaho and Missouri), but everyone ignores them). The laws were removed in most cases because they became unenforceable. Self-restraint, the hallmark of chastity, went out the window because of the liberal tendency to leave everyone to their own judgments, disregarding both the Common Good and the Divine Will. This slide began as early as 1930 with the English Anglican Lambeth Conference which snuck in contraception in limited circumstances, but, really, the trend towards personalism has been incipient in Protestantism since it’s beginning, where it was enshrined as the Principle of Private Judgment. One of the best books on the subject, called, Liberalism is a Sin, by Fr. Salvany, is in the public domain and available for download. It has an interesting history, because some liberals in Spain tried to refute it to the Vatican and they got slapped down, hard, and Fr. Salvany was vindicated. It is a book well worth reading and, in my opinion, gives a necessary background to what is fueling the distortions in theology that inform contraception, abortion, and so many other modern theological errors. Things have become so distorted that many people, especially young people, somehow think that if something is legal, it is, also, moral. This has its roots in Calvinism, but is, in modern times, a symptom of the desire for a central authority. Many people refuse to look to the Church, so they have to find their morality, elsewhere, either in a legal decision, or the permissions of a clueless academia.

    The Chicken

  20. The Masked Chicken says:

    Should read:

    The checks against judicial abuse are among the weakest checks-and-balances in the Constitution (a point made by Judge Bork).

    The Chicken

  21. TonyO says:

    Chicken, it is true that overturning Roe will not fix the problem we slid into with abortion (and contraception). Nevertheless, Roe was bad judicial practice in and of itself, besides its flouting good morals and good theology. It is a good thing for the Court, now, to repair the damage to judicial practice, so as to begin (in a small piece) to undo one of the many, many ways our legal system is distorted by liberalism / Protestantism. This will not fix the whole problem. It may, however, enable us to get along for a few more years of working to try to fix other elements of the problem, before it all comes tumbling down and we have a massive civil war. And it’s worth doing EVEN IF it doesn’t have the effect of helping to stave off the final disintegration of our civil order.

    My guess is that there will be a period of adjustment where 2/3 of the states enact laws to restrict abortions significantly, and people get used to traveling to other states for late-term abortions. This is far, far from OK, but it is still better than the current status. But it is also a non-trivial step toward the possibility of getting an even better situation, where the discussion about the morality can return to sensible patterns.

  22. jflare29 says:

    I have been reading several of these comments; I am not quite as…pessimistic…(?)…about the situation as might be some, yet I think I see some good points made.
    I too have been thrilled to hear that Roe might be overturned, and yet I find that doing so…will only be one battle in a very long, protracted war.
    And, …sad to say, it’s not that far-fetched to see Civil War 2.0 happen, for about the same reasons as the first. If we see ourselves as protecting unborn children, many will see…the Constitution being mangled for the purposes of power-hungry lunatics. Many may now see….well, a holy crusade (literally) hell bent on dragging everyone back to the Dark Ages.
    They may react accordingly.
    If we seek to see the end of routine abortion in the United States, we’ll have a VERY long way to go. If we truly intend to see the end of abortion, we’ll also need to confront the shattered condition of education, plus the heart-wrenching cries of those who conceive without expecting it. Only when men and women recognize that their actions may have distinctive consequences in nine months will we see abortion truly broken.
    If Roe would be overturned it will truly be a great victory.
    I do hope the Church, Her apostolates, and many of Her allies will be ready to change gears very quickly.

  23. The Masked Chicken says:

    There is one substantial difference between slavery and abortion – it is easier to hide a dead body than a live one. The goal of ending slavery was to free living people, who could protest their own slavery and fight their oppressors. The goal of ending abortion is to allow a living baby to come to term, one who can’t fight their oppressors nor protest their death.

    Once the thirteenth amendment was passed, as much as some may have still wanted slaves, it was very difficult to cover up the fact if they had them – it can be difficult to hide a living person. If the, let’s call it, the thirtieth amendment, is passed outlawing abortion in the United States, it will be much more difficult to prosecute the law because it is much easier to hide a dead fetus than a live adult. It is much easier to cover up an abortion than cover up owning a slave. Think of all the Hollywood starlets who has secret abortions in the 1930’s, when every state had a law against abortion. Just to name a few: Judy Garland, Jean Harlow, Tallulah Bankhead, Joan Crawford, Betty Davis, etc. Very few people knew. Unfortunately, even a universal anti-abortion law won’t stop abortions completely any more than a federal law against murder stops some homicides from happening. Unlike homicides, abortions are easier to cover up. While a universal law is a good start, anti-abortion advocates have to go deeper to shut off the phenomenon.

    Most women have abortions for one of two reasons: fear or selfishness. Fear is easier to deal with at a societal level. For a married but poor couple, offer the support of the community. We do this to a limited extent, today, but many of these pregnant women who might use the support of society are unmarried and this has led to the Welfare State.

    Separating sex from marriage has brought this about. Young people have to be schooled very hard about exactly what the purposes of sex are and are not. Unfortunately, this involves fighting mass media that uses sex to sell almost everything. There is a direct correlation between the rise of this marketing strategy and the fall off of self-control. I don’t know if we can ever recover the innocence of the media from bygone days, however. Would it be so bad to go back to the days of community band concerts and plays in the park, of bubble gum cartoons and Sunday magazines?

    Skirt lengths went up in the 1920’s and so did divorces; the same thing happened in the 1960’s. Both of these periods are the post- traumatic reactions to war. The sociological correlates between the two periods are impossible to ignore. Abortions and birth control started being pushed in the 1920’s, just as they were in the 1960’s. The difference is that technology has progressed in the 1960’s to the point where the contraceptive dreams of the 1920’s could be realized.

    For those who get abortions because of selfishness, what can be done, except to commend them to the Blood of Christ. All abortions implies a lack of faith and a misunderstanding of charity. Ask any abortion supporter what they think God deserves from them and they will get angry very quickly because if they thought for even a minute about the supernatural elements in any pregnancy, they would have to condemn themselves. Pro-aborts aren’t really angry at pro-lifers. Secretly, they are angry at themselves and angry at God for ruining all their plans. They can hardly bring themselves to admit that just maybe God has an opinion on the matter of procreation.

    Tomorrow, at some churches, there may be protesters dressed in costumes from The Handmaid’s Tale. What silly people. The author of the book wrote about things she does not understand and is dragging people to Hell because of it. In the book, from what I understand (I don’t read trash), a blight has made it possible for only about 10% of women to have children and after a totalitarian coup, the ruling elite force those women to have their children. Margaret Atwood has no clue about what she writes. The idiots who will dress like Handmaidens don’t seem to realize that *the Christians were overthrown along with everyone else* and it is NOT the Catholics or other Christians in the story who are forcing them to have babies. Indeed, most Catholics would prefer that they not have babies outside of a stable loving marriage. The Church, in fact, would be fighting on their side! Indeed, Atwood has described the exact contrapositive case for China, where children are forcibly aborted, not women inseminated. She got it backwards. Guess which religion is fighting the hardest against that Chinese practice – exactly the churches these cosplayers will be protesting at, tomorrow.

    As long as the media remains as permeated with sex as it is in society, I have grave doubts that abortion will stop, completely. We know enough from modern science to know that the zygote is not just a clump of cells. It’s teleology can only be human. Until the media can be forced to report the truth – that abortion is the murder of a human, not just a potential human – then dislodging the death grip that selfishness has on abortion will be almost impossible.

    Sorry, to go on so long. I have been thinking about these issues for a long time.

    The Chicken

  24. GregB says:

    The Masked Chicken: Under the conditions you describe it brings into question what worth and value the swearing of oaths have when assuming office, or to tell the truth when giving testimony in a court case. It is my understanding that Roe was based on a lot of misrepresentations of the truth during the trial.

Think, proof read, preview BEFORE posting!