Summit Abortion Clinic – Summit Abortion Clinic Closes Permanently


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                November 04, 2005

Summit Abortion Clinic
Closes Permanently

Only two abortion clinics remain in Milwaukee.
Since the Missionaries to the Preborn began in 1988,
6 of 8 abortion clinics in Milwaukee have closed.


To: National Desk

MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN November 04 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — Last Saturday, October 29th, 2005, the Summit Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic located at 530 N. Water St. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, closed it’s doors for good. The clinic has not declared any public reason for it’s shutting down, but since the year 2000, Missionaries to the Preborn has targeted the clinic with daily pickets. For the last five years, they have been there every day to offer help to the mothers as they approach the clinic. They have also frequently picketed the homes of the abortionists and the clinic workers.

Missionaries to the Preborn has also conducted investigations into the operating procedures of the Summit abortuary, and has publicized the malpractice lawsuits against the abortionists which “practiced” there.

From the early to mid-90’s, Summit was the scene of countless rescues where the Missionaries and other Christians blockaded the doors of the clinic to defend the helpless preborn from a grisly death. Hundreds were arrested.

“We give thanks to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ for the closing of this death camp. This is proof, that when God’s people act in simple obedience to His Word and show love to their neighbor in need, these abortion clinics can be shut down.” –Pastor Matt Trewhella, Founder of Missionaries to the Preborn

Missionaries to the Preborn is a Christian Mission which was founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1988. Since the Mission began, six of the eight abortion clinics in Milwaukee have closed down and the number of abortions committed in Wisconsin each year has dropped by over 50%.

If you would like to support Missionaries to the Preborn, you can write them at:
Missionaires To The Pre-Born
P.O. Box 26931
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
414-462-3399
Website: www.missionariestopreborn.com
Email: defendbabies@missionariestopreborn.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Wisconsin – Wisconsin Declares 30 Year Low In Number Of Abortions


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                June 9, 2005

Wisconsin Declares 30 Year
Low In Number of Abortions

Meanwhile
Number of Abortions In Michigan Increases By
Thousands During Last Four Years

What makes the difference between these two states?

Wisconsin has had the bloodied remains of
murdered preborn displayed on her streets for the last
decade and a half!


To: National Desk

WASHINGTON, D.C. June 9 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — On May 25th, 2005, the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services released figures showing that the number of abortions done in Wisconsin had reached a 30-year low – the lowest since records began to be kept back in 1974! Meanwhile, Michigan has experienced an increase in the number of abortions by the thousands during the last four years.

When you compare these two states, their legislation regarding abortion is essentially equal. Also, Planned Parenthood is doing the same thing in both states on the pro-abortion side, and, Right to Life is doing the same things in both states on the anti-abortion side. The glaring difference between the two states is THE PUBLIC DISPLAYING OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE MURDERED PREBORN.

Missionaries to the Preborn will be conducting THE AMERICAN ATROCITIES TOUR from June 13th – 24th, 2005, a two-state, 17-city, campaign being held in Michigan and Wisconsin wherein they will, once again, display the photographs of the murdered preborn at busy intersections.

The display will include photographs from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd trimesters, as the killing of the preborn is legal in all three trimesters.

Since the State-legal killing of the preborn is public policy in America, it is only right that their suffering be publicly displayed on America’s streets.” -Pastor Matt Trewhella, founder of Missionaries to the Preborn

Missionaries to the Preborn is a Christian Mission which was founded in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1990. Since the Mission began, five of the eight abortion clinics in Milwaukee have closed down and the number of abortions committed in Wisconsin each year has dropped by over 46%. They have conducted similar tours in over 450 cities and towns in 31 states and 3 foreign countries.

CONTACT:
Missionaires To The Pre-Born
Jim Soderna
P.O. Box 26931
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226
414-462-3399
Website: www.missionariestopreborn.com
Email: defendbabies@missionariestopreborn.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

A Republican-Appointed Supreme Court Gave America Legalized Abortion, Sodomy, And Pornography


A Republican-Appointed Supreme Court Gave
America Legalized Abortion, Sodomy, And Pornography


By Pastor Matt Trewhella


The Covenant News ~ June 09, 2009


Obama has nominated a Supreme Court justice. She will in all likelihood turn out to be pro-abortion and pro-homosexual. Obama is rabidly pro-abortion and pro-homosexual, and birds of a feather flock together.

If you were one of those people who could not bring yourself to vote for the lesser-of-two-evils (have you noticed that the lesser-evil gets more evil every four years?) this past November, you are probably hearing from some of your friends right about now saying – “See, I told you to vote for McCain just so Obama couldn’t appoint the next Supreme Court justice.”

You may be feeling bad or even pained in your conscience about this – but don’t. Historical fact reveals that you would have gotten nothing different with a Republican-appointed justice. The truth is Obama’s nominee has the same values as the majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices over the last 40 years.

If you doubt what I am saying, just take a few moments to look at the facts.

1.) The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was given to us a by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Six of the seven justices which voted in support of Roe v. Wade were appointed by Republican presidents.

2.) Roe v. Wade has been upheld and legalized abortion maintained by a majority of Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices for the last 36 years. Since the Roe. v. Wade decision, Republican-appointed justices have always been in the majority by a margin of at least 7-2. Currently, 7 of the 9 justices are Republican-appointed.

3.) The 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case which decriminalized sodomy was given to us by a majority of Republican-appointed justices. Four of the six justices which voted in support of decriminalizing sodomy were appointed by Republican presidents.

4.) Remember also, it was a Republican-appointed majority Court which banned school prayer in the 1962 Engle v. Vitale case, and which opened the floodgates of pornography in the 1973 Miller v. California case.

Every four years, Christian people in this nation are stampeded into voting for the Republican presidential candidate based on the mantra – “whoever is elected President will appoint the next Supreme Court justices!” Republicans insist that we must vote for their presidential candidate in order to insure that liberal justices are not appointed to the Supreme Court.

The historical facts however, show that their assertion is absolutely false. When you look at the facts there is not a lick of difference between Obama’s nominee and what we have gotten from the Republicans for the last 40 years.

Until Christians take the Republicans to task for this, nothing will change. The Republicans find legalized abortion too politically advantageous to actually outlaw abortion. How then would they be able to keep the Christians in line?

The truth is our nation finds itself in its current state because the people have turned their backs on God and are living in rebellion to him; the pulpits are full of hirelings and whores; and American Christians have embraced a superficial, narcissistic, man-centered Christianity. No political party can remedy this situation. Only the pure preaching of God’s Word calling men to repentance and faith in Christ.



Matt Trewhella is the pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church (http://www.mercyseat.net) and the founder of Missionaries to the Preborn (http://www.missionariestothepreborn.com). He and his wife Clara have eleven children.


More from Matt Trewhella

Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Court News Report

Abortion and Punishment


Abortion and Punishment


By Pastor Matt Trewhella


The Covenant News ~ October 24, 2007


There is a grave situation in the abortion fight regarding the thinking of pro-lifers. I know bringing this up chances that I may be speaking to the wind, as most Christians care little about the injustice committed against the preborn in our country. But here it goes: Most pro-lifers think there should be no punishment for women who have abortions if and when abortion is once again made illegal.

Recently, someone sent me a link to YouTube wherein pro-lifers were asked two questions. The first question: Do you believe abortion should be illegal? All answered ‘yes.’ The second question: What punishment should women receive who have illegal abortions? The responses were disappointing and sickening.

Many said they had “never thought about it before.” Most thought they shouldn’t be punished at all. Rather they thought we should “pray for them,” “treat them with love,” and “counsel and help them.” Most all made it clear there should be “no jail time for them” and thought they were “punished enough [just] by having an abortion.”

You can watch the whole sorry episode yourself at [Libertyville Abortion Demonstration].

This thinking of course is nothing new. National Right to Life and their affiliates have long preached that there should be no penalty for women who have abortions.

Recently, I saw Mike Huckabee, who is running for president, interviewed wherein he was asked if he thought a woman should be punished for having an abortion if it becomes illegal again. His response was that, as a pro-lifer, he likes “to talk about preservation, not punishment. Preservation of the unborn, not punishment of the woman.”

When I went to Portugal this past February in a last ditch attempt to thwart that nation’s embracement of abortion, the pro-life leaders actually held a press conference two weeks before the referendum to state that they agreed with the pro-choice side that all laws which punished the woman should be abolished.

This is a faulty position held by pro-lifers for three reasons: First, it is an affront to God’s Law; second, it insults justice; and third, it spits upon the humanity of the preborn child.

Man is made in God’s image and therefore must be protected by civil law. Murder is a violation of God’s Law (Ex.20:13). God’s Law is clear that murderers should be put to death (Ex.21:12). In fact God’s Law makes it clear that if two men are in the commission of a fight and one strikes a woman who is pregnant and the woman or the baby dies, the man is to be executed (Ex. 21:22-25). How much more is the punishment just if the baby is killed deliberately by the woman and the abortionist? Allowing a murderer to go free with no punishment is an affront to God’s Law.

Justice demands punishment. Even the man doing the interviews in the YouTube episode understood that there was something absurd with the idea of calling abortion the capital crime of murder, and then saying there should be no punishment. This moral schizophrenia is an insult to the very nature of justice.

I remember when I was young hearing a Right to Life leader say that abortionists should only be given a ticket the first time they are caught committing an abortion. That statement, coupled with his follow-up that women receive no punishment at all, left me thinking – so what’s the big deal about abortion? If those who are opposed to abortion think the penalty should be a ticket and nothing at all, surely the killing of the preborn cannot be that big of a thing. They were spitting on the humanity of the preborn by suggesting such measly punishments for murder.

Most Christians chafe at abortionists and women (and men in complicity with them) being charged with murder for two reasons. First, most Christians hate God’s Law more than they hate abortion, and second, most have not come to grips with the humanity of the preborn child; they view the child as less than human. This is also why every time someone uses force to protect the preborn, Christians cannot get to their fax machines quick enough to be the first to condemn such actions.

When we are asked what the punishment should be for women who have illegal abortions, we should unashamedly respond – whatever the penalty is for murder in the state where it takes place. Of course, as Christians, we offer the good news of redemption through Christ to those guilty of abortion, just as we would any other criminal guilty of a capital crime. But that does not negate the justness of punishment administered by the civil magistrate on behalf of society.

To think otherwise about this matter, is to give credence to the present matriarchal bloodlust in our nation, just as the Romans gave credence to the past patriarchal bloodlust of fathers who could murder their own sons and daughters by leaving them at the infanticide wall to die.


Matt Trewhella is the pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church (http://www.mercyseat.net) and the founder of Missionaries to the Preborn (http://www.missionariestothepreborn.com).


More from Matt Trewhella

Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Court News Report

Christian Conservatives – President’s Shut Up/Drop Dead Rebuke of Christian Conservatives on Abortion Issue Demonstrates He Is Not Pro-Life


President’s Shut Up/Drop Dead Rebuke of
Christian Conservatives on Abortion Issue
Demonstrates He Is Not Pro-Life


By John Lofton


The Covenant News ~ July 12, 2005


Despite the impression he leaves sometimes because he doesn’t speak all that precisely, President Bush DOES have a litmus test for his judicial nominees. He just doesn’t care enough about the murder of innocent, unborn babies to include the abortion issue in his litmus test.

For example, in a press conference recently in Denmark, Mr. Bush said he will pick people to be judges who, among other things, “can do the job” and who are “honest” and “bright.” He also said he would look at the “interests” of any of his potential judicial nominees.

This kind of talk is mush. In this same vacuous vein, the President might also have said that anyone he names to the judicial bench must also eat all of his or her vegetables and brush after every meal.

However, in this same news conference, Mr. Bush said, when asked if, in picking judges, he would have a litmus test on abortion or homosexual “marriage,” no way. He said that on these issues “there will be no litmus test.”

But, why no litmus test on abortion which is, literally, a life-and-death issue? I mean, since 1973, more than 40 million innocent, unborn babies have been slaughtered by abortion because various judges have “legalized” this mass murder.

What’s wrong with asking a possible judicial nominee, BEFORE he is nominated, such questions as: (1) Under what circumstances do you think judges can order the taking of human life? (2) Do you think unborn babies are innocent human beings? (3) Do you think Roe v. Wade and other court rulings upholding abortion were and are valid?

And what’s wrong with asking a possible judicial nominee, BEFORE he is nominated, where he stands on homosexual “marriage?” God-ordained and Biblically-defined marriage — the only kind of marriage there is — is a key part of the basic foundation of a society. So, why not ask a person being considered for a judgeship: (1) Do you believe homosexuals have a “right” to marry? (2) How do YOU define marriage?

Are the views of a potential judicial nominee on abortion and homosexual “marriage” really LESS important than whether that person “can do the job” (whatever that means), or whether that individual is “honest” and “bright?” I think not. In fact, to believe that the former issues are LESS important than the latter issues is absurd. It is sheer moral idiocy.

Indeed, it is IMPOSSIBLE to separate abortion and homosexual “marriage” from what Mr. Bush has already said are his qualifications for being a judge. For example, he has promised repeatedly that he will name judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution and [will] not use the bench to legislate from.”

Terrific. So, why not ask potential judicial nominees: (1) Do you think the various court rulings that made abortion “legal” were strictly interpreting the Constitution? (2) Or do you think such rulings were legislating from the bench? Ditto, the same questions regarding various court rulings that have said homosexuals have a “right” to be “married.”

But, Mr. Bush has made it crystal clear that he will NOT have such a “litmus test” on abortion or homosexual “marriage.” Why not? I believe the answer is obvious: Because the President does not care about these issues. Period. It’s as simple as that. I can think of no other reason.

And Mr. Bush does not care about those who DO care about the judicial activists who gave us “legal” abortion and “legal” homosexual “marriage.” In recent days, Christian conservatives have criticized the President’s pro-abortion Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who said in his confirmation hearing that Supreme Court rulings making abortion “legal” are now the law and he would enforce them. To those Christian conservatives who oppose the naming of Gonzales to the Supreme Court, the President has said, in so many words: Shut up and drop dead! Stop criticizing Gonzales because he is a friend of mine who has been loyal!

In this same Denmark press conference, clearly referring, in part, to the Christian conservative critics of Gonzales, Mr. Bush said he hoped Senators “don’t listen to the special interest groups” that are “outside the process,” groups that are (gasp!) “money-raising groups” — a strange and hypocritical cheap-shot since Mr. Bush has spoken to scores of fund-raising events raising tens million of dollars for his own campaigns and for the Republican Party.

And I wonder how those Christians conservatives feel who were suckered into voting for Mr. Bush because they thought he was truly pro-life? Before his re-election, these Christian conservatives were a key part of his base which he pandered to unceasingly and vigorously courted. They were, supposedly, his fellow-laborers in the effort to create “a culture of life.” Also, since Mr. Bush claims to be a Christian, the millions of Christian conservatives who voted for him are his brothers and sisters in Christ.

But, that was then and now is now. Now, Mr. Bush has been re-elected. Now, these Christian conservative “values voters” — many of whom held their noses and voted for him, “the lesser of the two evils’ — are scorned as “special interest groups.” Now, these Christian conservatives are said to be “outside the process” — a bizarre characterization since individuals and groups simply speaking out about potential Supreme Court nominees is an important PART of the “process” that helps to determine who becomes a judge on the high court.

If President Bush really wanted to create “a culture of life” — as he has said many times he does — the number one issue on his litmus test list for judicial nominees would be that they must oppose abortions, ALL abortions. But, his potential nominees are NOT asked about the abortion issue — a shameful silence that speaks louder than any pro-life campaign promise he ever made.


John Lofton, a “recovering Republican,” is, with Michael Anthony Peroutka, the 2004 Presidential candidate of the Constitution Party, co-host of “The American View,” a new, weekly radio show syndicated by “Radio America.” You can e-amil Mr. Lofton here: JLof@aol.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

State Bills Banning Abortion – State-Level Bills Banning Abortion in Eight U.S. States


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                April 4, 2007

State Bills
Banning Abortions

2007 State-Level Bills Banning Abortions in Eight U.S. States

– AL, CO, GA, MT, ND, SC, TX, VA (16% of States in U.S.)

Revised and updated as of March 26, 2007

Alabama – SB 59
http://alisdb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/ACASLogin.asp
(click on “SB59” button and then click on “View”)
Type Bill: state-level abortion ban bill with a life-of-the-mother exception; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions except does not ban abortions “where the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy”; bill does not ban all chemical abortions)
Bill Status:
03/06/2007 Read for the first time and referred to the Senate committee on Judiciary

Colorado – SB 143
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/BillFoldersSenate?OpenFrameSet
Type Bill: state-level abortion ban bill with a life-of-the-mother exception; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions except does not ban abortions to prevent “the death of a pregnant mother “; bill does not ban all chemical abortions)
Bill Status:
02/12/2007 Senate Committee on Judiciary – FINAL VOTE –
Moved SB07-143 to be postponed indefinitely.
The motion passed on a 4-3 vote.
01/29/2007 Introduced In Senate – Assigned to Judiciary

Georgia – HB 1
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hb1.htm
Type bill: state-level abortion ban bill; also asserts fetal personhood as legislative finding of fact
(bans all surgical abortions; bill may ban all chemical abortions)
Bill Status:
01/10/2007 House Second Readers
01/09/2007 House First Readers
11/15/2006 House Prefiled

Montana – HB 403
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2007/billhtml/HB0403.htm
Type bill: state-level constitutional personhood bill
(bans all abortions, surgical and chemical)
(bill for Montana state constitutional amendment to be voted on by referendum on Nov. 2008 ballot)
Bill Status:
(H) 3rd Reading Failed 02/13/2007 – 45 Yes, 53 No
(H) 2nd Reading Pass as Amended Motion Failed; 3rd Reading Required 02/12/2007 – 46 Yes, 54 No
(H) 2nd Reading Motion to Amend Carried 02/12/2007 – 55 Yes, 45 No
(H) Committee Executive Action–Bill Passed as Amended 02/08/2007 – 10 Yes, 7 No – (H) Judiciary
(H) Hearing 02/02/2007 (H) Judiciary

North Dakota – HB 1466
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-actions/ba1466.html
Type bill: state-level abortion ban bill with a life-of-the-mother exception; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions except does not ban abortions to “prevent the pregnant female’s death”; bill does not ban all chemical abortions) (“trigger” bill – does not go into effect until Roe v. Wade overturned)
Bill Status:
03/23 Senate Reported back without recommendation y 006, n 000
03/13 Senate Committee Hearing 10:30
02/07 Senate Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary
01/29 Senate Received from House
01/26 House Second reading, passed – yeas 061, nays 026
01/25 House Reported back, do pass, placed on calendar – yeas 008, nays 004
01/22 House Committee Hearing
01/15 House Introduced, first reading, referred Judiciary

North Dakota – HB 1489
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/bill-index/bi1489.html
Type bill: state-level abortion ban bill; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions; bill does not ban all chemical abortions)
Bill Status:
01/26/07 House Second reading, failed to pass – yeas 020, nays 069
01/25/07 House Reported back, do not pass, placed on calendar – y 013, n 000
01/22/07 House Committee Hearing

South Carolina – H.3284
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3284.htm
Type bill: state-level statutory personhood bill
(bans all abortions, surgical and chemical)
Bill Status:
1/17/2007 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/17/2007 House Introduced and read first time

South Carolina – S.313
http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/313.htm
Type bill: state-level statutory personhood bill
(bans all abortions, surgical and chemical)
Bill Status:
1/23/2007 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary
1/23/2007 Senate Introduced and read first time

Texas – HB 175
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB175
Type Bill: state-level abortion ban bill with a life-of-the-mother exception; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions except does not ban abortions to prevent “the death of the mother “; bill does not ban all chemical abortions) (“trigger” bill – does not go into effect until Roe v. Wade overturned)
Bill Status:
H Withdrawn from schedule 03/12/2007
H Scheduled for public hearing on . . . . 03/12/2007
H Referred to State Affairs 01/30/2007
H Read first time 01/30/2007
H Filed 11/13/2006

Texas – SB 186
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=SB186
Type bill: state-level abortion ban bill with a life-of-the-mother exception; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all surgical abortions except does not ban abortions to prevent “the death of the mother “; bill does not ban all chemical abortions) (“trigger” bill – does not go into effect until Roe v. Wade overturned)
Bill Status:
S Referred to State Affairs 01/29/2007
S Read first time 01/29/2007
S Filed 01/10/2007

Virginia – HB 2797
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?071+ful+HB2797
Type bill: state-level statutory right to life at fertilization bill; does not assert legal personhood
(bans all abortions, surgical and chemical)
Bill Status:
02/05/07 House: VOTE: ENGROSSMENT REFUSED (43-Y 53-N)
02/05/07 House: Amendment by Delegate Orrock agreed to
02/05/07 House: Motion to pass by motion to refer to committee on Courts agreed to
02/05/07 House: Read second time
02/03/07 House: Read first time
02/02/07 House: Reported from Privileges and Elections (12-Y 7-N)
01/10/07 House: Referred to Committee on Privileges and Elections
01/10/07 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/10/07

Legislative Research Distributed by:
Columbia Christians for Life
PO Box 50358, Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 765-0916
http://www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on “RTL Act of SC”)
http://www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net

“Exceptions” to a ban on abortion are unconstitutional, as illustrated in the text of the Roe v. Wade decision itself: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

The 1973 Roe decision stated that if legal “personhood” was vested for the unborn, that the pro-abortion argument would then collapse.

For over 34 years now, the pro-life movement has failed to achieve that goal by a state-level, statutory declaration that pre-birth human beings are legal “persons” at fertilization, without exception. As illustrated by the Roe decision itself, “exceptions” to legal personhood are unconstitutional:

Right to Life Act of SC – news conference and “Jesus Christ is Lord of the Gates” pro-life rally – Jan. 17, 2006 http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-1032.doc

” In the very text of the Roe v. Wade US supreme Court decision it states, “[Texas] argue[s] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” In other words, there never would have been legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade. But tragically, Texas had an “exception” which undermined their entire “personhood” argument. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “[ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists… But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command? …” “
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113

The Right to Life Act of SC, in statutorily vesting legal “personhood” at fertilization for ALL human beings, satisifies the Roe formula published over 34 years ago. The issue of legal “personhood” for ALL human beings, without exception, is a key to unlocking the 34 year old Roe v. Wade abortion enigma.

Jesus said, “… I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Matthew 16:18

Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
PO Box 50358, Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 765-0916
http://www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net (click on “RTL Act of SC”)
http://www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net

February 1, 2007 / Revised March 26, 2007 / Revised March 27, 2007

PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Construction Company ‘Digs in Their Heels’ to Build New Planned Parenthood Abortion Facility in minority neighborhood


Construction Company “Digs in Their Heels” to Build
New Planned Parenthood Abortion Facility
in minority neighborhood


By Leslie Hanks


The Covenant News ~ October 26, 2007


This week pro-life activists met with the heads of the Weitz Company, discussing the new Planned Parenthood abortion facility that Weitz is contracted to build in the Stapleton area in North Denver, Colorado.

Displaying a surprising allegiance to the abortion industry, Bill Hornaday, President of the Weitz Company Rocky Mountain, has refused to reconsider building the largest death camp in the United States. In the private meeting, Hornaday indicated that money is not the prime motivator for building the new Planned Parenthood.

“The ideals of the Weitz Company are worse than we thought,” said Keith Mason, of the Keep Peace in Stapleton Project. “If they are not building this superstructure for money, are they building it out of a desire to facilitate the murder of innocent children?”

Gary Meggison, Senior Vice President of the Weitz Company, is a member of the Catholic church. Neighbors of Vice President Don Gendall claim that he is a “strong Christian”. “The bottom line is that followers of Christ would not be a part of this heinous business,” continued Mason. “A true Christian would do what is necessary to save the lives of innocent children.”

The brief meeting, attended also by Senior Vice President Gary Meggison, revealed an obvious disdain for women and children. Meggison not only refused documents of Planned Parenthood’s reported child rape cover-ups (under investigation by Kansas’ and Indiana’s attorneys general), but also the facts of their multi-million dollar baby killing business.

“These heartless men are contributing to the exploitation of women and the deaths of millions of children,” stated Jennifer Viaes of Keep Peace in Stapleton. “It is clear that Weitz Company is determined to be a part of the abortion industry, no matter the cost.”

After Meggison left the meeting, Hornaday acknowledged that the protests of his employee’s homes are par for the course.

“We are continuing to keep these executives in our prayers, in hope that they will not build this modern-day Auschwitz in a minority Denver neighborhood. We must pray that they do the right thing,” Keith Mason, Keep Peace in Stapleton.

For Interviews Please Contact:
Keith Mason 303-495-3438
Website: www.KeepPeaceinStapleton.com

Leslie Hanks is V.P., of Colorado Right To Life. She can be contacted at:
Website: www.ColoradoRighttoLife.org

E-mail: lhanks@coloradorighttolife.org


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Court News Report

Health and Human Services – Bush’s HHS abortion funding


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                October 9, 2004

Bush’s abortion funding

President Bush deceives Americans in presidential debate: taxpayers ARE funding abortions -with his signature on (Health and Human Services) HHS Appropriations bills!

Second Presidential Debate, October 8 – Bush/Kerry

Washington University in St. Louis
St. Louis, MO
Friday, October 8, 2004

Audience Question: “… suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?

[pro-abort John Kerry answered first]

then selective pro-abort George W. Bush answered:

Bush: “… My answer is, we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion.” http://www.allamericanpatriots.com

Reaction to President Bush’s statement, “we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion”, by Steve Lefemine, Constitution Party candidate for US Congress, District # 2 in South Carolina:

“President Bush has lied to the American people on a national stage. With 25 days until the November 2 election, he is perpetuating a myth for the ears of his conservative Christian base, that George W. Bush is pro-life.

As a Christian pro-life missionary, lobbyist, and candidate for public office, let me say clearly to Christian pro-lifers across this country, George W. Bush is NOT Pro-Life!

As documented below, George W. Bush has been funding abortion throughout his presidency. He is funding selected surgical abortions, chemical abortions, and the nation’s largest chain of abortion centers and perpetrators of abortion in America, namely, Planned Parenthood. On November 2, Christian pro-lifers should not waste their vote on abortion-funder and abortionist-funder George W. Bush. The only 100% pro-life candidate for U.S. President on the ballot, and he’s on the ballot in at least 37 states, is Michael Peroutka, Constitution Party!”

Here is the documentation that President Bush has been funding selected surgical abortions, and chemical abortion, and Planned Parenthood (nation’s largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers) throughout his presidency:

    1) President Bush is funding surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) in the HHS Appropriations bills: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    • Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on Jan. 10, 2002
    • Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on Jan. 23, 2004
    2) President Bush is funding chemical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX) and the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    • Check out HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002
    • Check out HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004
    3) President Bush is funding the nation’s largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion, Planned Parenthood (report murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with OVER $50 MILLION per year through each program: [see bills below at http://thomas.loc.gov]
    • Included in HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on 1/10/2002
    • Included in HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-109) on 1/23/2004
    4) President Bush has increased the Title X funding levels over $26,000,000 more than the last Clinton budget:
    • The Title X funding level for FY 2001, the last Clinton-influenced budget, was a total of $254 million, of which over $58 million went to planned parenthood
    • In FY 2002, George W. Bush’s first full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased over 11,000,000, to $265 million (HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush on 1/10/2002)
    • In FY 2004, George W. Bush’s most recently completed full budget year, the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding authorization increased even more to $280 million, over $26,000,000 ($26 million) more than Bill Clinton’s last budget year! (HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush on 1/23/2004)

Conclusion # 1: George W. Bush did not speak the truth to Americans last night (10/8/04) in the Second Presidential Debate.

Conclusion # 2: George W. Bush is NOT Pro-LIfe!

October 9, 2004
Steve Lefemine
Constitution Party candidate for US House Second District (SC)

(Part 1b BUSH’S ABORTION FUNDING, cont’d)

Part 2 is Medicaid surgical abortion funding;
Part 3 is Planned Parenthood funding

CONTACT:
Lefemine For Life for Congress
P.O. Box 50358
Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 765-0916

Steve Lefemine for US2 Congress
SteveLforUS2@sc-online.net
blog: www.LefemineForLife.net

PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Title X – Bush’s Title X Abortion Funding, cont’d:


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                October 16, 2004

BUSH’S ABORTION FUNDING, cont’d:


Title X Funding History – FY 1971 – 2004

More on Title X – Supplement to Part 1 of 3-part report: Bush’s abortion funding

    Note the Title X funding has increased during Bush’s administration over Clinton’s

    George W. Bush: Jan 2001 – Jan 2005 (R)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    2004                &nbsp$ 280,000,000
    2003                &nbsp$ 275,000,000
    2002                &nbsp$ 265,000,000

___________________________________________________________

    Bill Clinton: Jan 1993 – Jan 2001 (D)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    2001                &nbsp$ 253,932,000
    2000                &nbsp$ 238,885,000
    1999                &nbsp$ 215,000,000
    1998                &nbsp$ 203,452,000
    1997                &nbsp$ 198,452,000
    1996                &nbsp$ 192,592,000
    1995                &nbsp$ 193,349,000
    1994                &nbsp$ 180,918,000

___________________________________________________________

    George H.W. Bush: Jan 1989 – Jan 1993 (R)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    1993                &nbsp$ 173,418,000
    1992                &nbsp$ 149,585,000
    1991                &nbsp$ 144,311,000
    1990                &nbsp$ 139,135,000

___________________________________________________________

    Ronald Reagan: Jan 1981 – Jan 1989 (R)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    1989                &nbsp$ 138,320,000
    1988                &nbsp$ 139,663,000
    1987                &nbsp$ 142,500,000
    1986                &nbsp$ 136,372,000
    1985                &nbsp$ 142,500,000
    1984                &nbsp$ 140,000,000
    1983                &nbsp$ 124,088,000
    1982                &nbsp$ 124,176,000

___________________________________________________________

    Jimmy Carter: Jan 1977 – Jan 1981 (D)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    1981                &nbsp$ 161,671,000
    1980                &nbsp$ 162,000,000
    1979                &nbsp$ 135,000,000
    1978                &nbsp$ 135,000,000

___________________________________________________________

    Gerald R. Ford: August 9, 1974 – Jan 1977 (R)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    1977                &nbsp$ 113,000,000
    1976                &nbsp$ 100,615,000
    1975                &nbsp$ 100,615,000

___________________________________________________________

    Richard M. Nixon: Jan 1969 – August 1974 (R)

    Fiscal Year;     &nbspTotal Title X Funds Appropriated

    1974                &nbsp$ 100,615,000
    1973                &nbsp$ 100,615,000
    1972                  &nbsp$ 61,815,000
    1971                    &nbsp$ 6,000,000

___________________________________________________________

Republican president, Democrat president, it doesn’t matter – Title X funding in total dollars continues to rise.

As has been said over and over, by people from all across the political spectrum, “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties !”

Note:

    The Title X program includes funding for contraceptive birth control; birth control that causes chemical abortions; and birth control for unmarried adolescents, even if their parents object to the federal government giving their children hormonal drugs and devices with which to fornicate.

    The Title X program is also one of the principal federal government funding mechanisms for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation’s largest chain of child-murder-by-abortion centers.

Information on Title X from the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs website: www.DHHS.gov

October 16, 2004
Steve Lefemine
Constitution Party candidate for US House Second District (SC)

CONTACT:
Lefemine For Life for Congress
P.O. Box 50358
Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 765-0916

Steve Lefemine for US2 Congress
SteveLforUS2@sc-online.net
blog: www.LefemineForLife.net

PRESS RELEASE FILE


TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Medicaid – Bush’s Medicaid funded abortions


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                October 28, 2004

Medicaid abortions


BUSH’S ABORTION FUNDING, cont’d:

Part 2 of 3-part report:
Funding for selected Medicaid abortions


Follow-up to October 9 “Bush’s abortion fundingreport:

Part 2 of 3-part report:
Funding for selected Medicaid abortions is

    REQUIRED in HHS Appropriations bills – or else states threatened by federal government with loss of other Medicaid funds; thanks to votes of Republican-majority Congress, and signature of President Bush

[Part 1 is Title X (ten) funding; Part 3 is Planned Parenthood funding]

___________________________________________________________

The Lie:

President Bush deceives Americans in presidential debate:
taxpayers are funding abortions – with his signature on HHS Appropriations bills!

When responding to an audience question about taxpayers’ money being used to support abortion during the Second Presidential Debate on October 8, President Bush gave this deceptive, deceitful, false response:

BUSH: “My answer is, we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion.” (See: transcript)

___________________________________________________________

The Truth:

Three Ways Taxpayers’ Money Is Being Used to Support Abortion:

As reported at Covenant News on October 9, there are three ways that taxpayers’ money is being used to “support abortion,” as the question from the audience was presented during the October 8 Presidential Debate, and to which President Bush gave a false answer:

BUSH: “My answer is, we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion.” (See: transcript)

    1. President Bush is funding selected surgical abortions via Medicaid (Title XIX)

    2. President Bush is funding chemical abortions via both Medicaid (Title XIX) and via the Title X birth/population control and Planned Parenthood funding program

    3. President Bush is funding Planned Parenthood, the largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion in the United States (Planned Parenthood reports murdering over 200,000 unborn children annually by surgical abortion alone), through both Medicaid (Title XIX) and Title X, with over $50 million per year through each program, for a total of over $100 million per year, just through these two Planned Parenthood funding mechanisms

___________________________________________________________

Immoral

All of this surgical abortion, chemical abortion, and Planned Parenthood funding is buried in the grotesquely huge U.S. Health and Human Services Appropriations bills that Congress and the President break their oaths of office by voting for and signing each year.

Unconstitutional

In addition to being immoral by funding surgical abortion, chemical abortion, birth control for unmarried adolescents even if their parents object, and child-murderering-abortionists (i.e. Planned Parenthood), the bills are entirely unconstitutional, full of “pork” funding of local projects, and examples of creeping socialism in America that the Republican-majority Congress has voted to pass, and the Republican President has signed into law to authorize these evil and immoral expenditures.

This report documents the funding

In order to assist interested Christians and pro-lifers who wish to document for themselves the claims of federal government support of abortion with American’s tax dollars, in direct conflict with the false claim made by President Bush to a national audience on October 8, this report is Part 2 of a 3-part report, and will document the funding authorization language for selected Medicaid abortions in the FY 2002 and FY 2004 Health and Human Services Appropriation bills.

Part 2 of 3-part report:
Funding for selected Medicaid abortions is

    REQUIRED in HHS Appropriations bills -or else states threatened by federal government with loss of other Medicaid funds; thanks to votes of Republican-majority Congress, and signature of President Bush

___________________________________________________________

Funding authorization language for selected Medicaid abortions in the FY 2002 and FY 2004 Health and Human Services Appropriation bills:

1. Bush administration: FY 2002 HHS Appropriations Bill

    HR 3061 for FY 2002, signed by President Bush (PL 107-116) on Jan. 10, 2002.

    Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov

    – Key in HR 3061 for 107th Congress (first click on “Bill Text” and select “107“)

    – Then choose [H.R.3061.ENR]

    – When HR 3061 comes up, click on “Title V–General Provisions” and find: SEC. 508 and SEC. 509

    Be Sure To Read SEC. 508 and SEC. 509 to see how Congress and the President make your federal taxdollars pay for selected Medicaid abortions, Don’t Be Fooled By The Deceptive Wording In SEC. 508 – Read SEC. 509 also!

Limitation on abortion funding in SEC. 508, Does Not Apply In These Cases:

From SEC. 509:

      SEC. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion–

    “(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or
      (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.”

___________________________________________________________

H.R.3061

Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

___________________________________________________________

TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS

      SEC. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

      (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

      (c) The term `health benefits coverage’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

      SEC. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion–

    (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

    (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

      (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

      (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

___________________________________________________________

Note:

This is from TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate).

The net effect and practical consequence of this abortion-funding language is that the federal government requires states accepting medicaid funding to kill unborn children in the cases where the baby was conceived in a case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. Medicaid is a co-mingled federal/state dollars federal program.

If a state tries to pass state appropriations legislation to prevent the use of state-level tax dollars from being used to kill unborn babies in these selected cases via Medicaid, then the state risks losing Medicaid funding from the federal government in other, unrelated Medicaid programs.

___________________________________________________________

2. Bush administration: FY 2004 HHS Appropriations Bill

    HR 2673 for FY 2004, signed by President Bush (PL 108-199) on Jan. 23, 2004

    Go to: http://thomas.loc.gov

    – Key in HR 2673 for 108th Congress (first click on “Bill Text” and select “108“)

    – Then choose [H.R.2673.ENR]

    – When HR 2673 comes up, page down a significant amount of the page (slightly more than halfway, until you find:

    Division E–Departments Of Labor, Health And Human Services, And Education, And Related Agencies Appropriations, 2004

    – DO NOT click yet. Under this section “Division E–… etc.” page down more until you find: TITLE IV–RELATED AGENCIES

    – DO NOT click yet now either. Under this section TITLE IV–RELATED AGENCIES, find: “Limitation On Administration

    – Now click, on “Limitation On Administration” and when this section opens up, page down to:

    TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS” and find, SEC. 508 and SEC. 509

    – Be Sure To Read Sec. 508 and Sec. 509 to see how Congress and the President make your federal taxdollars pay for selected Medicaid abortions, Don’t Be Fooled By The Deceptive Wording In SEC. 508 – Read SEC. 509 also!

Limitation on abortion funding in SEC. 508, Does Not Apply In These Cases:

From SEC. 509:

      SEC. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion–

    (1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

    (2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

___________________________________________________________

H.R.2673

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS

    SEC. 508. (a) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.

    (b) None of the funds appropriated under this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated under this Act, shall be expended for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.

    (c) The term `health benefits coverage’ means the package of services covered by a managed care provider or organization pursuant to a contract or other arrangement.

    SEC. 509. (a) The limitations established in the preceding section shall not apply to an abortion–

(1) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or

(2) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.

    (b) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as prohibiting the expenditure by a State, locality, entity, or private person of State, local, or private funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

    (c) Nothing in the preceding section shall be construed as restricting the ability of any managed care provider from offering abortion coverage or the ability of a State or locality to contract separately with such a provider for such coverage with State funds (other than a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds).

___________________________________________________________

Note: same language, same sections under this heading also:

LIMITATION ON THE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

___________________________________________________________

Note:

This is from TITLE V–GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate).

The net effect and practical consequence of this abortion-funding language is that the federal government requires states accepting medicaid funding to kill unborn children in the cases where the baby was conceived in a case of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is at risk. Medicaid is a co-mingled federal/state dollars federal program.

If a state tries to pass state appropriations legislation to prevent the use of state-level tax dollars from being used to kill unborn babies in these selected cases via Medicaid, then the state risks losing Medicaid funding from the federal government in other, unrelated Medicaid programs.

___________________________________________________________

BUSH: “My answer is, we’re not going to spend taxpayers’ money on abortion.” (See: transcript)

Conclusion # 1: George W. Bush did not speak the truth to Americans
                         on October 8 in the Second Presidential Debate.

Conclusion # 2: George W. Bush is NOT Pro-LIfe!

___________________________________________________________

What is the practical effect in terms of children murdered annually?

Even pro-aborts know that Medicaid is being used to fund selected abortions:
http://www.righttochoose.org/abstats.htm

PUBLIC FUNDING: U.S. Congress has barred use of federal funds to pay for abortions for Medicaid-eligible women except when the woman’s life is threatened or in cases of rape and incest. 16 states, including New Jersey, use their own funds for abortions for low-income women. 14% of all abortions were paid for with public funds, almost all being state funds.

___________________________________________________________

As an example, North Carolina’s Right to Life group knows it also: http://www.ncrtl.org/statistics.htm

A History of the North Carolina State Abortion Fund

In 1995, this fund was reduced to $50,000, with stipulations on its use. Prior to this time, there were virtually no restrictions on the use of taxpayers’ money in funding abortions. In 1997 public funds (including federal Medicaid) paid for 5 abortions to preserve the woman’s life, 59 abortions for the case of rape, and 2 abortions for the case of incest. In the 1999-2000 budget, the abortion fund remains at $50,000, with the restrictions placed on this fund in 1995 kept in tact.

___________________________________________________________

In South Carolina, I have worked since 1997 to de-fund abortion funding in the SC state budget. Figures provided by the SC Department of HHS show:

FY 2002-2003 – Medicaid (Title XIX) was used to fund 13 abortions
FY 2001-2002 – Medicaid (Title XIX) was used to fund 18 abortions
FY 2000-2001 – Medicaid (Title XIX) was used to fund 18 abortions

Question: How many murders does one have to commit to be a murderer? Answer: One
___________________________________________________________

The national figure for the total number of surgical abortions (not even counting the number of chemical abortions) funded by Medicaid is not available as of this writing. However, the average for SC in the three state fiscal years above was just over 16 Medicaid abortions per year.

South Carolina ranked 38th lowest in the nation in 1996 for its abortion rate per 1,000 women, and in 2000 had a population just over 4 million, when the nation’s population was over 281 million. Doing the math, that comes out to a conservative estimate of 1,100 plus unborn human beings that are murdered each year with federal tax dollars through the Medicaid program, as authorized by the Republican-majority US Congress, and the so-called “pro-life” Republican President, George W. Bush.

George W. Bush is NOT Pro-Life.

October 28, 2004
Steve Lefemine
Constitution Party candidate for US House Second District (SC)

CONTACT:
Lefemine For Life for Congress
P.O. Box 50358
Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 765-0916

Steve Lefemine for US2 Congress
SteveLforUS2@sc-online.net
blog: www.LefemineForLife.net

PRESS RELEASE FILE


TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Abortion Industry – Abortion Industry Bust


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 08, 2005

Abortion Industry Bust

• Planned Parenthood, Others, Caught Protecting Child Rapists
• Kansas Attorney General Conducts Criminal Investigation
• ACLU, Abortion Lobby Fight Court Issued Subpoenas
• Other AG’s Request Life Dynamics Data For Their States


To: National Desk

Denton, Texas., March 08 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — During a two-year investigation, American family planning clinics were caught on tape covering up what they believed was the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. As part of the investigation, completed in 2002, Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities across America.

The female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion in order to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities.

On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state.

However, even after acknowledging this, 91 percent of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it. Representatives of these organizations-often operating on tax dollars-routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

  • lie about or conceal her age or the age of the man who impregnated her
  • participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law
  • use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility
  • keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility
  • be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it. “The tapes from our investigation clearly prove that these people are running a pedophile protection racket,” said Life Dynamics President, Mark Crutcher. “America’s family planning clinics are little more than corporate accomplices for sexual predators who target children.”

Calling the results of the survey sickening, Crutcher also noted that this cover-up is part of a national epidemic of older men sexually preying on underage girls. “The most reliable current data shows that among girls 15 or younger who get pregnant, between 60 and 80 percent are impregnated by adults, and now we know who’s making big money off the cover-up.”

Now, Kansas abortion clinics are not only refusing to cooperate with Attorney General Phil Kline’s investigation into this issue, representatives have even stated in published reports that they will not comply with the state’s mandatory reporting laws regarding the sexual abuse of children.

Since this showdown recently broke into the national media, ten other attorneys general have requested data from the Life Dynamics investigation. Crutcher says, “Stay tuned. Mr. Kline’s criminal investigation is just the beginning. It may have been a long time in coming, but the fur is starting to fly.”

CONTACT:
Life Dynamics, Incorporated
Rita Lanning
P.O. Box 2226
Denton, Texas 76202
1-940-380-8800
Website: www.ChildPredators.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Abortion Clinic – Abortion Clinic Crimes Exposed


TODAY’S NEWS FOR
TODAY’S CHURCH

• TODAY’S NEWS
• Murder by Abortion
• Abominations
• Freedom of Speech
• Politics
• Jim Rudd
• Chuck Baldwin
• Paul deParrie
• Dave Black
• Al Cronkrite

Resources:
Homeschool Links
Crisis Pregnancy?
Abortion Aftercare
Educational Resources
Related Net Links
The Study Room
Prayer Closet
Pro-Life Media
Pro-Life Missions
Election & Voters Info
Commentary Archives

Special Reports:

Judge Roy Moore
Ten Commandments Monument Battle
Abortion Regulators Series
An Exercise in Doublespeak
Injured After RU-486?
Get Help & Support Now
The Florida Vote
A Chronological History
The Baby Parts Industry
Follow the Money
Search for Eric Rudolph
Chronological Updates
Death of Jesse Dirkhising
A Tale of Torture

Homeschool Favorites:

Memorial Day
The Resurrection Story
American Heritage
Thanksgiving Day
The Birth of our Savior

Contact Us:
Subscribe Now
FREE Daily Email Update
Email the Editor

 Press Release:  

 ……………………. 

   NEWS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                March 23, 2005

ON TV TONIGHT
Abortion Clinic Crimes Exposed


To: National Desk

Denton, Texas., March 23 /Covenant News Wire Service/ — It was recently revealed that Planned Parenthood has filed suit to prevent Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter and his Medical Fraud Control Unit from seeing the medical records of 12 & 13-year-old child abuse victims. Planned Parenthood’s action should come as no surprise because they were previously caught on tape covering up what they believed was the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl. Similarly, abortion clinics are refusing to cooperate with the investigation of child rape cases by the Kansas Attorney General and their representatives have even stated in published reports that they will not comply with the state’s mandatory reporting laws regarding the sexual abuse of children.

  • The Abortion Industry Exposed Tonight on The O’Reilly Factor! (8:00pm Eastern/7:00 PM Central and again at 11:00 PM Eastern/10:00 PM Central on the Fox News Channel)
  • Be sure and watch Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics, on The O’Reilly Factor tonight on Fox News. Mark will be talking with Bill O’Reilly about the abortion industry’s cover-up of suspected child abuse.
  • For updates on this rapidly developing story go our special web page that details the investigations of abortion clinics by the Attorney General of Kansas and the Attorney General of Indiana – click here.

As part of a two-year investigation completed in 2002, Life Dynamics Incorporated of Denton, Texas recorded over 800 calls to Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation facilities all across America. The female caller portrayed a 13-year-old girl who was pregnant by an adult and wanted an abortion to hide the illegal sexual relationship from her parents and the authorities. On the tapes, many of the clinic workers are heard telling the caller that this situation was unlawful and that they were legally mandated to report it to the state. However, even after acknowledging this, 91 percent of the 800 facilities contacted agreed to illegally conceal it. Representatives of these organizations-often operating on tax dollars-routinely instructed a child who they believed to be a sexual assault victim to:

  • lie about or conceal her age or the age of the man who impregnated her
  • participate in illegal activity in order to circumvent the state’s parental notification law
  • use a fictitious name, phone number or address when she came to the facility
  • keep the situation hidden by altering what she would say when she came to the facility
  • be more careful about what information she gave out and to whom

Many clinic representatives told the caller that they deal with this situation “all the time” and that the advice they were giving her is the way they normally handle it. “The tapes from our investigation clearly prove that these people are running a pedophile protection racket,” said Life Dynamics President, Mark Crutcher. Calling the results of the survey sickening, Crutcher noted that this cover-up is part of an epidemic of older men sexually preying on underage girls. “The most reliable current data shows that among girls 15 or younger who get pregnant, between 60 and 80 percent are impregnated by adults, and now we know who’s making big money off the cover-up.” Since this story broke in the media, ten other attorneys general have requested data from the Life Dynamics investigation. Crutcher says, “America’s family planning clinics are little more than corporate accomplices for sexual predators who target children.”

CONTACT:
Life Dynamics, Incorporated
Jim Phillips
P.O. Box 2226
Denton, Texas 76202
(940) 380-8800
Website: www.ChildPredators.com


PRESS RELEASE FILE



TODAY’S NEWS    Murder by Abortion    Freedom of Speech    Court News Report    Politics    Abominations

Not All George Tiller’s Abortions Were ‘Legal’


Not All George Tiller’s Abortions Were ‘Legal’


By Dave Leach


The Covenant News ~ December 12, 2009


First in a series of excerpts, with translations, from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. His trial is scheduled for January 11. Future installments will include: Abortion Stopped Being “Constitutionally Protected” in 1992 <> Federal Law Caused Roe’s “collapse” in 2005 <> The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury

The prosecutor rests her entire case upon a 16-year-old ruling which has been superseded for several years by both U.S. Supreme Court precedent and the U.S. Code.

The Prosecutor asserts that Defendant has no right to present his theory of the Necessity Defense to the jury, because what was in fact unthinkable harm, which he in fact successfully prevented, by killing Dr. George Tiller, was not “unlawful”, which is the only kind of harm which may justifiably be prevented according to City of Wichita v. Tilson, 855 P.2d 911 (Kan.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 976, 114 S. Ct. 468, 126 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1993).

[Tilson said:] (1) the defense of justification by necessity cannot be used when the harm sought to be avoided is a constitutionally protected legal activity and the harm incurred is in violation of the law, and (2) evidence on when life begins was irrelevant in action for criminal trespass on property of abortion clinic and thus admission was error.

Neither the prosecutor, nor Tilson, nor Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), dispute the widespread allegation that abortion is in fact an unthinkable harm, and even genocide itself; they say only in its defense that it is legal. Thus prosecutor alleges that whether or not he was committing genocide, “George Tiller was not engaged in illegal conduct at the time of his murder.” Tilson, actually contradicting Roe v. Wade, calls evidence that this conduct is, in fact, genocide, “irrelevant”.

Kansas law likewise will not help a hero who saves thousands of lives, if the “cruel and unusual” slaying of those human souls is legal: “21-3211(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”

In addition, several state supreme courts have asked, with Tilson, “How can a harm be legally [re]cognizable, if it is constitutionally protected?”

But all these precedents are out of date. Abortion has not been constitutionally protected since at least 2003. Abortion has been legally recognizable as a harm since 2005, the year Roe “collapsed”.

LEGALITY OF TILLER’S ABORTIONS, EVEN BY POPULARLY ACCEPTED LEGAL STANDARDS, IS NOT SO CRYSTAL CLEAR

Prosecutor rests her entire In Limine motion [to not allow the jury to find out about Roeder’s defense] on her insinuation that Dr. George Tiller’s abortions were all legal. But she cannot even nurture that insinuation into a clear, unambiguous assertion. Even the Prosecutor carefully dances around the issue of whether George Tiller’s abortions were legal by commonly accepted, understood, and applied legal standards! She writes,

    “In the instant matter, [the case before us] the defense clearly has no applicability, even if the defense were recognized in Kansas. George Tiller was not engaged in illegal conduct at the time of his murder; he was serving his church as an usher. And while the victim’s provision of lawful abortion services to women may be the motive behind the defendant’s attack, those past or potential future services cannot serve as a legal justification for it. See, Tilson, supra.”

Notice she wants to say “Tiller was not engaged in illegal conduct” categorically, but must qualify it with “at the time of his murder; he was serving his church as an usher.” This is an oblique allusion to the Imminence requirement, addressed later. So we do not have, here, any kind of triumphant affirmation that “Tiller was not engaged in illegal conduct” when he was killing babies!

Next she glances at the hope that Tiller “provi[ded] lawful abortion services” exclusively, but she cannot spit it out. She chokes out that perhaps I [Roeder] was motivated by those of his abortions which were “lawful”. Well, yes I was, but what really made me despair that the political alternatives had shut down were the abortions he did, the legality of which even much of the public doubted, and yet the law could not or would not touch him.

Prosecutor in short would like to assert before the Court that Tiller’s abortions were all legal, by commonly applied law, but the closest she dares approach is to insinuate it. She bolsters her insinuation with quotes from Tilson which apply only if all of Tilson’s abortions are legal, further supporting her insinuation that all of them were in fact legal, yet it all adds up to, at most, an insinuation.

This swings wide the door to a factual inquiry by the jury whether all of Tiller’s abortions really were legal by any standard. The problem for the prosecutor is that before this inquiry is settled, an inquiry which remained publicly unsettled at the time of Tiller’s death, it cannot be glibly taken for granted that Tiller’s abortions were all legal, in order to rule, before trial, that Kansas 21-3221(a) is not available to defendant.

[This is what the prosector is trying to do with her November 12 motion In Limine: she wants a ruling from the judge, before trial (the hearing will be December 22), that Roeder not be allowed to say a word to the jury about his only defense, which is also the only contested issue of the trial, which also rests upon the fact question of the factual nature of abortion – and juries are supposed to be “triers of the facts”.]

Even if prosecutor had clearly stated the arguable proposition that all of Tiller’s abortions were legal, the matter cannot be assumed before the jury speaks on it. A ruling for her In Limine motion would surely, therefore, be reversible error. [“Reversible Error” means a legal error serious enough for an appeals court to overturn a jury’s verdict.]

But since there has been no clear statement even from the prosecutor that all of Tiller’s abortions were legal, there really is little reason to take prosecutor’s motion seriously. She hesitates to assert the facts which would make her case cites even relevant.

Brief Series: Necessity Defense

1st: Not All George Tiller’s Abortions were ‘Legal’

2nd: Abortion Hasn’t Been ‘Constitutionally Protected’ for 18 Years!

3rd: Roe v. Wade ‘Collapsed’ in 2005

4th: Roe’s Mating Call Answered After 30 Years

5th: The Constitution Explicitly Protects the Unborn

6th: Hiding ‘Necessity Defense’ from Jury Denies ‘Due Process of Law’

7th: Judge Wilbert ruled out ‘Necessity Defense’ but…

8th: Deadly Logic

Dave Leach
Author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many.
Contact him at:
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
E-mail: AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.
Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Abortion hasn’t been ‘Constitutionally Protected’ for 18 Years!


Abortion Hasn’t Been ‘Constitutionally
Protected’ for 18 Years!


By Dave Leach


The Covenant News ~ December 17, 2009


Second in a series of excerpts from the pro se brief being submitted by Scott Roeder to answer how the Necessity Defense justifies his shooting of Wichita’s late term abortionist, George Tiller, May 31. His trial is scheduled for January 11. Slight changes are made to make the excerpt more readable to non-lawyers. Technical citations are simplified or omitted. Future installments will include: Federal Law Caused Roe’s “collapse” in 2005 <> The Theory that Stopping Kansas Abortions can’t be Justified because Abortion is Legal Originated in a Grammatical Misunderstanding in 1993 <> Not Even Roe Says Whether Abortion is Genocide is “Irrelevant” <> Preamble Constitutionally Protects “Our Posterity”, Making Roe Unlawful from its Inception <> Imminence and Alternatives <> Due Process Denied, when the Only Contested Issue of a Jury Trial is Hidden from the Jury

The view that Abortion is constitutionally protected may have seemed true in 1993. That’s when the Kansas Supreme Court said so in a case quoted by Scott Roeder’s prosecutor, called City of Wichita v. Tilson.

But a Supreme Court justice explained in 2003 how that ceased being true in 1992.

The justice: Scalia. The case: Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia explained how the Supreme Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, abandoned Roe’s position that abortion is a “fundamental right”. (When a court says something is a “fundamental right”, that is a court’s way of saying it is “constitutionally protected”.)

Scalia proves the right of a woman to choose to hire someone to kill her unborn child stopped being “constitutionally protected” in two ways. First, he pointed out that Casey did not once describe abortion as a “fundamental right”.

Second, Scalia pointed out that Casey said states did not need to “narrowly tailor” their abortion laws “to serve a compelling state interest”. In courtroom thinking, states can get out of all that “narrow tailoring” only after abortion is no longer “constitutionally protected”.

(You don’t need to understand these strange words to understand the rest of this article, but in case you are curious, here’s what they mean: let’s take the example of freedom of religion, colliding with a religion that worships by taking drugs. In a 1990 case, Employment Division v. Smith, a court said peyote use can be outlawed even if it is a religious ritual. However, the Constitution protects belief in the ritual. But because religion is a “fundamental right”, any law limiting such worship must “serve the compelling state interest” of controlling illegal drugs, and the law must be “narrowly tailored” to serve that state interest in the way that “least restricts” religious practices. Courts call this the “strict scrutiny” test.)

Here is the way Scalia explained it in 2003: “We have since rejected Roe’ s holding that regulations of abortion must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ….and thus, by logical implication, Roe’ s holding that the right to abort an unborn child is a ‘fundamental right.’ …. (not once describing abortion as a ‘fundamental right’ or a ‘fundamental liberty interest’).”

This reasoning withdraws “Constitutional protection” from abortion at any stage of gestation.

Even before this Supreme Court retreat from “constitutionally protecting” abortion, two appellate courts noticed that Roe v. Wade never “constitutionally protected” abortions on babies after “viability”. (“Viability” is when a baby can usually survive outside the womb. George Tiller made a name for himself on the corpses of babies he killed after they could have survived outside the womb.) Two other courts said the same thing after 1992, apparently not noticing the issue was moot since constitutional protection had been withdrawn from all abortions.

The four courts didn’t directly say “Roe never constitutionally protected abortion after viability.” They said it indirectly, something like this: “The fetuses saved by these fanatical prolifers weren’t viable. Therefore, abortions on them were constitutionally protected.”

A 1993 Illinois court said “The abortions performed at Concord West were confined to the period up to 12 weeks gestation. No evidence was presented that the fetus is viable at this point. Thus, the abortions performed at Concord West were constitutionally protected.”

A 1988 Pennsylvania court said “defendants should have been permitted to adduce evidence of viability.” A 1997 Mississippi case said the same thing.

The Kansas Tilson case mentioned the Pennsylvania case. It says “the defendants were convicted of criminal trespass. They alleged that the crimes were justified to prevent the loss of a human life. The court held that the necessity defense was unavailable because a woman’s right to obtain an abortion was protected by the United States Constitution. The court stated: ‘As we have noted, pre-viability abortion is lawful by virtue of state statute and federal constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court, from Roe through its progeny, has consistently held that the state’s interest in protecting fetal life does not become compelling, and cannot infringe on a woman’s right to choose abortion, until the fetus is viable.’ …. Appellants do not suggest that viability and conception are simultaneous occurrences. We find that a legally sanctioned activity cannot be termed a public disaster.”

A fourth court, in a 1988 New York City case, People v. Archer, said Roe had rendered any abortion that occurred in the first trimester a fundamental constitutional right. However, “the question is by no means free from doubt.” But if indeed abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right”, the Court reasoned, a first trimester abortion could not constitute a harm, much less “murder” as the defendants believe. However, the judge said he was willing to allow the jury to hear about the Necessity Defense if the defendants were able to show that the abortion office “was about to perform other than first trimester abortions on” the date of their “protest”.

The judge talked about the post-viability babies – the older babies, killed by late term abortions such as George Tiller was known for. He said the New York legislature had made their abortions “justifiable”, though otherwise they would be criminal acts. But “abortion can still constitute a moral ‘injury to be avoided’, under § 35.05 of the Penal Law, the judge said, because citizens of ordinary intelligence and morality remain free both as individuals and as jurors, to find it so.

The prosecutor had argued that allowing the rescuers to explain the Necessity Defense to the jury would be a state’s interference with abortion. (What an admission that the prosecutor expected the jury to acquit if the jury were entrusted with the facts!) But the judge answered that the prosecutor had even more discretion than the judge, to give the defendants their rights: the prosecutor had discretion not to prosecute the rescuers at all! Therefore it is absurd to accuse any court of interfering with any “constitutional right” just because it follows Due Process in trying defendants accused of interfering with it.

Another court accepted the prosecutor’s accusation that if the court allowed the defendants to present their defense to the jury, that would be state interference with the constitutional right to abortion. (State v. Clowes, 1990, Oregon.) The court actually said that the defendants met all the legal requirements for being allowed the defense, but giving the defendants Due Process “would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade”!

Here’s how they said it: “trial court found that defendants had proffered sufficient evidence on all the elements of the choice of evils defense, generally, to submit it to the jury. Nevertheless, the trial court granted the state’s motion to exclude evidence of the defense on the ground that to admit such evidence would be inconsistent with Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.”

Depriving a defendant of a constitutional right to present a defense that the court has ruled is available to him as a matter of law, in deference to a purely speculative concern about a possible passive or implicit interference with some unknown person’s conflicting constitutional right, cannot be a correct course of action for any court.

Conclusion: It is clear that no abortion has enjoyed Constitutional Protection, in the view of the U.S. Supreme Court, since 1992.

It is even more clear that post-viability abortions have no Constitutional protection in the view of any court.

Brief Series: Necessity Defense

1st: Not All George Tiller’s Abortions were ‘Legal’

2nd: Abortion Hasn’t Been ‘Constitutionally Protected’ for 18 Years!

3rd: Roe v. Wade ‘Collapsed’ in 2005

4th: Roe’s Mating Call Answered After 30 Years

5th: The Constitution Explicitly Protects the Unborn

6th: Hiding ‘Necessity Defense’ from Jury Denies ‘Due Process of Law’

7th: Judge Wilbert ruled out ‘Necessity Defense’ but…

8th: Deadly Logic

Dave Leach
Author of Roeder’s pro se brief, with input from many.
Contact him at:
137 E. Leach
Des Moines IA 50315
cell 515/480-3398
E-mail: AcknowledgeHimN2010@Saltshaker.US.
Website: http://www.Saltshaker.US/Scott-Roeder-Resources.htm


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Abortion Exceptions?


Abortion Exceptions?


By Jo Scott


The Covenant News ~ February 09, 2007


The pro-life movement may be on the brink of throwing away one of its strongest arguments against abortion. There is an opinion within the movement that if we give up on the rape and incest babies we’ll be able to save the others and then we’ll go back later for the rape babies.

The rape and incest scenarios can be used effectively to undermine the pro-abortion argument. The abortion industry uses rape and incest as a moral high ground by making abortion for rape and incest victims seem compassionate.

Abortion for rape emboldens the rapists, puts women at a higher risk for rape, multiplies her suffering and increases the rapist population.

Often an underage young woman that has been raped is taken to the abortion mill by the rapist. Many times he is a member of her own family. Her rapist convinced her, long before they ever darken the door of the abortuary that it would be in her best interest never to speak of her abuse. At the mill no questions are asked, she’s aborted and she’s sent home with the rapist, only to be assaulted again. No authorities are contacted, the outward evidence of her abuse is destroyed, and no one is the wiser, leaving her with no way out. Upon leaving the mill she’s been violated and traumatized once again, only this time it’s been done “legally” by the abortionist.

The abortion mill is the pedophile’s insurance policy. He knows that if he impregnates his young victim that abortion will destroy the evidence of his crime. Therefore he is free to abuse the young woman with impunity and the abortionist is his accomplice. Abortion for rape and incest only encourages the rapist to repeat his crime.

If prolifers sponsor bills that include the rape and incest exceptions we must understand that we are directly attacking the personhood of the child, and the sacredness of all life. We are also leaving young women without protection while we legislate their innocent children to death. All of which will embolden the rapist and increase the number of rapists among us.

Some believe that insisting on abortion ban legislation without the rape or incest exceptions is an irresponsible, all or nothing mindset. They say that if the holocaust rescuers used the all or nothing strategy no one would have been rescued from Hitler’s death camps. They are correct, but the holocaust rescuers did not legislate one group of innocent people to death so that others would survive. There in lies the difficulty. It is immoral to legislate the murder of one innocent class of people in order to save another. It is reminiscent of the movie /Lifeboat/ where several people are stranded at sea in a lifeboat and will only survive if one in the group is thrown into the sea to drown. The movie attempts to desensitize its audience to the value of the weakest among us. In the sixties Christians understood the /Lifeboat/ scenario to be evil. Can we, in the new millennium, understand that the “exceptions” scenario is also evil?

Jo Scott
Director, Pro Life Colorado


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

The Death Of Abortion: an analysis of South Dakota House Bill 1215


The Death of Abortion:

an analysis of South Dakota House Bill 1215


By Dan Holman


The Covenant News ~ February 28, 2006


Abortion and birth control are antagonistic to Creation. They waste under their own curse as they course toward self destruction. They leave in their wake the deaths of individuals, the destruction of families, a void in communities, and the downfall of nations. They rip, slash and tear at the moral fabric of a religious people.

Coming events foreshadow themselves as several states introduce legislation to abolish or restrict abortion. Most of this legislation will undoubtedly be gutted with exceptions for rape, incest, or lifestyle of the mother. South Dakota legislators have kept most these exceptions from defiling House Bill 1215.

Though HB 1215 declares that life begins at conception, it allows for a life of the mother exception. A doctor should always try to save both patients. We should never pit the life of the mother against the life of her child. We should recognize the same rights for both pre-born and post-born.

Though a doctor may be penalized if he aborts under a pretense of medicine, HB 1215 does not penalize abortion as it would other homicides. Pre-meditated murder by abortion faces a mere maximum of 5 years in prison and a $5000 fine. It suggests in its penalty that the pre-born child is somehow worth less than other human life. It is holding to a Common Law double standard.

I find no instance in Common Law or American Jurisprudence where the rights of the unborn are equated with that of the post-born. Common Law made it a Felony to abort after quickening and a misdemeanor to abort before quickening. HB 1215 makes it a felony to abort from the moment of conception.

Modern ultra-sound technologies open a window to the womb. Quickening, or movement, occurs much earlier than previously realized. Can quickening or viability be a legitimate criterion for human worth? Knowing what we do today, was it not unjust to have this double standard under Common Law?

Humanity begins at fertilization, it is a scientific fact! HB 1215 declares the humanity of the pre-born child. Hopefully those who defend HB 1215 will not waver, but expand on this principle

    The unborn baby is not the property of the parents, the people, or the state. As we call our soul our own, the unborn also owns his soul, yet not exclusively:

      Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: Ezekiel 18:4

God is Sovereign over His Creation.

God has put it in the heart and mind of every creature to protect its young. “For the poor wren, the most diminutive of birds, will fight, her young ones in her nest, against the owl.” Mac Beth

You might think me unreasonable to demand such stringent standards. To not demand tough standards is to inherit weak ones which inevitably allow for human cloning, fetal tissue harvesting, stem cell and fetal research, designer babies, sex selection, animal-human hybrids, test tube babies, and a host of other evils.

It is doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold HB 1215, yet they should be forced to address the humanity and worth of the unborn. The court has evaded this argument for over 33 years. The Supreme Court should explain its betrayal of the Constitution in Roe v. Wade, and account for its crimes against humanity.

Missionaries to the Pre-born Iowa
Dan Holman
P.O. Box 135
Keokuk, Iowa 52632
(319) 524-5587
truthvan@yahoo.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

A Fly In The Ointment (South Dakota’s fatal flaw in outlawing abortion)

A Fly In The Ointment
South Dakota’s fatal flaw in outlawing abortion


By Dan Holman


The Covenant News ~ March 18, 2006


Abortion and birth control have much in common. They both seek to prevent the birth of a child. The same arguments used to justify abortion are used to justify birth control.

Some birth control acts as an abortifacient. An abortifacient prevents newly conceived life from implanting in the womb. The baby is spontaneously aborted. The pill, the I.U.D., Norplant, Depo-Provera, and Emergency Contraception, are among the most commonly used abortifacients.

There is a cultural mentality that accepts abortion at early stages of human development. Yet “A person is a person no matter how small” Dr. Seuss. The murder of a child is actually more heinous than the murder of an adult. A child is more helpless and innocent; he has more life taken from him.

The highest law of our land, the Constitution, states in its preamble, it applies to us “and our posterity”.

The Declaration of Independence, our founding document, states in principle that “all men are created equal.”

Jesus said, “Leave the children alone, and don’t try to keep them from coming to Me, because the kingdom of heaven is made up of people like this.” Matthew 19:14 In God’s economy children are equal in worth to adults.

Birth control encourages sexual immorality. Prior to 1936 birth control was a Black Market item.

We cannot in principle outlaw abortion without outlawing birth control. Outlawing birth control is not a radical idea. The 1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision struck down birth control laws; Griswold created a “Right of Privacy”, the underpinning of Roe vs. Wade.

At the suggestion of outlawing birth control, feminist sirens warn of government intrusion into their bedrooms. They should have such a fear in their hearts.

But birth control laws were seldom enforced. These laws served as a social standard.

We see the same principal in scripture. Adultery and Sodomy are punishable by death (Leviticus 20: 10-13), yet we read nothing of sodomites or adulterers being put to death. Good kings merely exiled sodomites. 1 kings 15:12; 22:46

Birth control laws hindered distribution. Today Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars every year to distribute birth control. Planned Parenthood should go underground when birth control is outlawed.

Sirens warn: Teen pregnancies will increase! But the very opposite should happen.

According to Planned Parenthood’s own statistics, contraceptives have a collective failure rate of 54% http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html Birth control is risky! It is like playing Russian Roulette with a six shooter and 3 live rounds; it gives people a false sense of security while encouraging them to play. Once this false security is taken away, women should not so readily engage in sex.

I graduated from high school in 1965, the year Griswold became law. Most of us graduated as virgins. Today, sex education is taught from kindergarten through 12th grade while policeman patrol the halls.

We did not need sex education to learn about sex, my father explained to me; “WAIT UNTIL YOU’RE MARRIED!”

South Dakota HR1215 forbids most but not all abortion; it is flawed because of exceptions for life of the mother and birth control abortifacients.

The Partial Birth Abortion legislation is fatally flawed because it outlaws only one abortion procedure; HR 1215 is flawed because it outlaws all abortion procedures but two.

It is difficult to argue humanity, worth, and equal protection when we justify exceptions for killing them. Abortion cannot be outlawed apart from a winning argument of equal protection under the law.

Dan Holman
P.O. Box 135
Keokuk, Iowa 52632
(319) 524-5587
truthvan@yahoo.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Alito’s “Open Mind” on Abortion is Lunacy


Alito’s “Open Mind” on Abortion is Lunacy


By Reed R. Heustis, Jr.


The Covenant News ~ January 12, 2006


Before a sky diver jumps out of an aircraft, he makes sure that his parachute is in perfect working order. He’s not going to keep an “open mind” and trust an unchecked parachute out of blind faith. Such a decision can result in him plunging to his death.

When it comes to truth, there is only one road. All others lead to falsehood, and therefore destruction.

For example, in mathematics the sum of One plus One is Two. It would be totally against the law of mathematics to keep an “open mind” in the belief that One plus One equals Three.

In geometry, a circle is the set of all points at a fixed distance from a fixed point, the center; while a square is a polygon with four equal sides and equal angles. It would be totally against the law of geometry to keep an “open mind” in the belief that a square can ever be a circle.

In chemistry, potassium cyanide is a deadly poison that disrupts the cell’s respiration in humans, resulting in coma and death. It would be totally against the law of chemistry to keep an “open mind” in the belief that one can survive a cyanide gas chamber.

When it comes to truth, an open mind can be a very dangerous thing. Life literally hangs in the balance.

Ironically, while millions of pro-life Christians have thrown their support behind Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, mainly because of their unfounded faith that Alito will somehow vote to overturn the pro-abortion monstrosity called Roe v. Wade, Alito himself proclaimed that he would consider the question of abortion with – you guessed it – an “open mind”.

On Tuesday, January 10, 2006, Alito was asked whether he still agreed with his 1985 statement about the Constitution not providing a basis for a woman’s right to an abortion.

Alito dodged the question and offered this answer instead: “I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made.”

Did pro-life Christians notice this?

Perhaps it should be repeated:

“I would approach the question with an open mind and I would listen to the arguments that were made.”

If pro-life Christians are really of the understanding that abortion is murder, then why won’t they give a second thought as to the lunacy of Alito’s comment?

Logic dictates that if Alito is going to keep an “open mind” when approaching the issue of abortion, then he must logically also keep an “open mind” when approaching murder itself.

Surely the Constitution does not protect any right to murder. In fact, the opposite is true: the Constitution protects the right to life from being deprived without due process of law. The Constitution therefore prohibits murder, whether by abortion or otherwise.

Christians should already know that the Bible does not reveal any right to murder. They should already be very familiar with God’s prohibition of murder in the Ten Commandments.

When it comes to precious life, there is no room for the keeping of an “open mind” in the belief of falsehood. It is exactly this kind of deception that Satan, the father of lies, cherishes. When it comes to truth, lies should never be entertained.

In the Bible, the Psalmist is revealed to have been conceived in his mother’s womb (Ps. 51:5); and in biology, the life of a human being begins at conception when the father’s sperm fertilizes the mother’s egg.

These truths can never be compromised, no matter how militant the pro-abort.

If Alito is to keep an open mind, then he should only keep it open to the truth. When considering the issue of murder by abortion, the truth has already been revealed.

America needs a Supreme Court justice who will reject falsehood, and keep his mind open only to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So help him God.

Reed R. Heustis, Jr.
www.ReedHeustis.com


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Re: Abortion Is NOT Legal and Has Not Been Since 1789!


Re: Abortion Is NOT Legal
and Has Not Been Since 1789!


By Al Grayson


The Covenant News ~ December 28, 2005


Abortion, the artificial termination of pregnancy with intent to kill the unborn child, has been unlawful in the United States since 1789.

That the English and American common law was indeterminate concerning abortion is irrelevant. The US constitution is the supreme law of the land. It repealed and amended all law up until its ratification to the degree necessary to obtain compliance with the constitution.

The US constitution in Article I, Section 9, forbids congress to pass any bill of attainder. Please don’t skip over this vitally important provision of the constitution just because the word “attainder” is unfamiliar.

Attainder is a sentence of death. In English law, attaint not only sentenced the offender to death, it confiscated his estate, leaving his heirs destitute and his creditors holding an empty bag.

In America, the penalty beyond death, called “corruption of blood,” was abolished by the constitution. Further, the power formerly asserted by the British crown and Parliament to put certain persons or classes of persons outside the protection of the law without judicial conviction (due process of law; law of the land) was abolished and forbidden.

The statutes purporting to put the unborn child outside the protection of the [criminal homicide] law are declared unconstitutional. Art. I, Sec. 10 forbids the States from the same thing.

When the first abortion laws were enacted in the US, about 1820, they did not forbid abortion, which was already forbidden. They exempted medical practitioners who performed pregnancy terminations in which the child’s life could not be preserved, such terminations being performed to save the life of the mother (defense of other), from fear of prosecution and the necessity of defending their actions in court.

Later laws follow a general pattern of regulating abortion. Permitting abortion without criminal responsibility of both the abortionist and the mother(or person with decision-making power over her) was in conflict with the general text of the criminal homicide (murder/manslaughter) laws, so wording was inserted into the criminal homicide laws to make an exception for abortion.

Typical is the definition of “person” within the purview of the law, in which “person” is defined as “a human being who is alive AND HAS BEEN BORN.” These four words, or their equivalent in other states’ laws, constitute the bill of attainder. They exclude “a human being who is alive and has NOT been born,” an easily identifiable class of humans, from the protection of the criminal homicide law.

There is no statute of limitations for MURDER. If the government ever returns to upholding the law in this matter, all who have committed abortion, and all who have solicited abortion (like mothers), will be in danger of the law.

That prosecution of perpetrators of abortions committed before a return to upholding the law is unlikely does not mean that as a matter of law they are not at risk of the penalty of the law. Prosecutors have historically been reluctant to go after abortionists.

In Roe, it is pointed out that mothers have never been held accountable for obtaining abortions. Further, even in cases of illegal abortion, the abortionist and his accomplices have been punished with lesser penalties than the same act committed upon one who is already born. (Text at Note 49, Note 54)[1] These facts are part of the excuse that the Roe court used to justify expanding its denial of protection of the law to the unborn, which protection was already minimal.

“Privacy” and “emanations of penumbras” are merely smokescreens.

Until a State legislature eliminates distinctions made between human beings based on their place of dwelling (in or out of the womb) in its criminal homicide laws, the courts will almost certainly continue to declare that unborn humans unwanted by their mothers (or by those having decisionmaking power over mothers) have no rights that the born are bound to respect. Also see Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (Howard), 1856 [2]

Footnotes:

[1] Roe v. Wade is readily available at FindLaw.com Supreme Court Opinions. The citation search is down just a little. Findlaw even has given you the case ref. of Roe (410 U.S. 113)

Do “FIND” enter “49” to go to the text at Note 49. Click 4 times and if your browser is like mine you are at the text at Note 49.

Text at Note 49: “…in many States, including Texas, [49] by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another.”

Scroll down into the Footnotes to Footnote 54.

Note 54 in part: “If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty [death] for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?”

[2] “Dred Scott: “[Negroes] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had NO RIGHTS WHICH THE WHITE MAN WAS BOUND TO RESPECT [my emphasis]; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was BOUGHT and SOLD [my emphasis] as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing, or supposed to be open to dispute; and men in every grade and position in society daily and habitually acted upon it in their private pursuits, as well as in matters of public concern, without doubting for a moment the correctness of this opinion.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Family Topics

Partial Birth Abortion – Partial-Birth Abortion Ruling is Not a Pro-Life Victory – Gonzales v. Carhart


PBA Ruling is Not a Pro-Life Victory


By Pastor Bob Enyart


The Covenant News ~ April 24, 2007



Colorado Right To Life Summary of the Ruling
Upholding the Partial-birth Abortion Ban

Shirley Dobson, on the day of the ruling, agreed with talk show host Hugh Hewitt that the Supreme Court upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, “is an answer to prayer.” The tragedy, which she was unaware of, but which Hewitt as a lawyer should have known, is that not a single abortion, late-term or otherwise, has been or will be, canceled due to this ban. And THE BAN ITSELF NEVER HAD EVEN THE POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTING A SINGLE ABORTION.

Fifteen years of focused effort went toward achieving this ban, and tens of millions of dollars have been raised to continue that long fight, and during those years U.S. abortionists have killed 20,000,000 children. And now that we have our PBA ban in place, law enforcement cannot use it to protect the life of even a single pre-born child.

The justices of the 5-to-4 majority, all of whom were appointed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or George W. Bush, namely, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, rendered a ruling that has no moral component whatsoever and is merely regulatory. On page 30 at Section IV (A), these men optimistically suggest that, “The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.”

Our Christian leaders have mislead millions into thinking this ban would prevent at least some abortions. In reality, pro-lifers volunteered, they made phone calls, and gave money, all to promote a ban that utterly lacked the authority to save even a single baby. Sadly, our leaders are not wiser than that. Rank-and-file pro-lifers were never told that this ban had no ability to actually save a child, and instead was a public relations event “to keep the issue in the news.” But the children deserved better.

Almost all our leaders, from the protestant Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, to the Roman Catholic president of National Right to Life Wanda Franz, led Christians to believe that the PBA ban would reduce late term abortions. Two less-known syndicated Christian radio hosts, unnamed, were saying exactly that while celebrating this ruling until they took a call from Colorado Right To Life board member Lolita Hanks, RN, MS, who informed them that late-term abortionists will continue unabated under this ruling because the ban only prohibits a particular technique, and does NOT prohibit the murder of even a single child.

Even the justices themselves wrote, on page 26 at Section IV, that, “The question is whether the Act… imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term… abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle…” The following analysis documents the ruling’s repeated and aggressive affirmation of the right to kill unborn children, whether inside or significantly outside the womb, including by pulling the arms and legs of babies out of the birth canal and ripping them off. Many pro-lifers now celebrating would probably shed tears if they actually read the ruling itself.

The opinion, quoted extensively below, is repeatedly vulgar in its affirmation of the brutal tearing apart of living unborn children. Section III (C) (1) for example, regarding the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which this ruling repeatedly upholds as remaining legal, states that “D&E will often involve a physician pulling a ‘substantial portion’ of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus.” Then for the purpose of this current opinion, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito ruled that, “the removal of a small portion [such as ‘of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg,’ first pulled outside of the mother, as far as up to the navel] of the fetus is not prohibited.” (See documentation below).

Gonzales v. Carhart, April 18, 2007 (Upholding Congress’ 2003 PBA Ban)

Verbatim quotes from the ruling follow, with all our comments appearing [in brackets]. Bold and underlined emphasis can bring the reader quickly to the key factual, and the most egregious, portions of the decision. (The entire ruling is here at SupremeCourtUS.gov – PDF)

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
[John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito joined.]

p.3, I (A)
Between 85 and 90 percent of the approximately 1.3 million abortions performed each year in the United States take place in the first three months of pregnancy, which is to say in the first trimester. The most common first-trimester abortion method is vacuum aspiration (otherwise known as suction curettage) in which the physician vacuums out the embryonic tissue.

pp. 3-4, I (A)
Of the remaining abortions that take place each year, most occur in the second trimester. The surgical procedure referred to as “dilation and evacuation” or “D&E” is the usual abortion method in this trimester.

p. 4, I (A)
[The ruling will build upon this description of a procedure that remains legal as of this opinion.]

Some [doctors] may keep dilators in the cervix for two days, while others use dilators for a day or less… The doctor grips a fetal part with the forceps and pulls it back through the cervix and vagina, continuing to pull even after meeting resistance from the cervix. The friction causes the fetus to tear apart. For example, a leg might be ripped off the fetus as it is pulled through the cervix and out of the woman. The process of evacuating the fetus piece by piece continues until it has been completely removed.

p. 5, I (A)
Some doctors, especially later in the second trimester, may kill the fetus a day or two before performing the surgical evacuation. They inject digoxin or potassium chloride into the fetus, the umbilical cord, or the amniotic fluid. Fetal demise may cause contractions and make greater dilation possible. Once dead, moreover, the fetus’ body will soften, and its removal will be easier. Other doctors refrain from injecting chemical agents, believing it adds risk with little or no medical benefit.

p. 6, I (A)
For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E. The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes. There are no comprehensive statistics indicating what percentage of all D&Es are performed in this manner.

p. 6, I (A)
the doctor extracts the fetus in a way conducive to pulling out its entire body, instead of ripping it apart. One doctor, for example, testified:

“If I know I have good dilation and I reach in and the fetus starts to come out and I think I can accomplish it, the abortion with an intact delivery, then I use my forceps a little bit differently. I don’t close them quite so much, and I just gently draw the tissue out attempting to have an intact delivery, if possible.”
Rotating the fetus as it is being pulled decreases the odds of dismemberment.

pp. 6-7, I (A)
A doctor also “may use forceps to grasp a fetal part, pull it down, and re-grasp the fetus at a higher level—sometimes using both his hand and a forceps—to exert traction to retrieve the fetus intact until the head is lodged in the [cervix].”

p. 7, I (A)
Intact D&E gained public notoriety when, in 1992, Dr. Martin Haskell gave a presentation describing his method of performing the operation. …

    “At this point, the right-handed surgeon slides the fingers of the left [hand] along the back of the fetus and ‘hooks’ the shoulders of the fetus with the index and ring fingers (palm down). While maintaining this tension, lifting the cervix and applying traction to the shoulders with the fingers of the left hand, the surgeon takes a pair of bluntcurved Metzenbaum scissors in the right hand. He carefully advances the tip, curved down, along the spine and under his middle finger until he feels it contact the base of the skull under the tip of his middle finger. [T]he surgeon then forces the scissors into the base of the skull or into the foramen magnum. Having safely entered the skull, he spreads the scissors to enlarge the opening. The surgeon removes the scissors and introduces a suction catheter into this hole and evacuates the skull contents. With the catheter still in place, he applies traction to the fetus, removing it completely from the patient.”

p. 7-8, I (A)
Here is another description from a nurse who witnessed the same method performed on a 26½-week fetus and who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

p. 8, I, A

    “Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms—everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus… The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp… He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

p. 8, I (A)
Dr. Haskell’s approach is not the only method of killing the fetus once its head lodges in the cervix, and “the process has evolved” since his presentation. Planned Parenthood, 320 F. Supp. 2d, at 965.

p. 8, I (A)
Another doctor, for example, squeezes the skull after it has been pierced “so that enough brain tissue exudes to allow the head to pass through.” … Still other physicians reach into the cervix with their forceps and crush the fetus’ skull. … Others continue to pull the fetus out of the woman until it disarticulates at the neck, in effect decapitating it. These doctors then grasp the head with forceps, crush it, and remove it.

p. 9, I (A)
Yet one doctor would not allow delivery of a live fetus younger than 24 weeks because “the objective of [his] procedure is to perform an abortion,” not a birth. … The doctor thus answered in the affirmative when asked whether he would “hold the fetus’ head on the internal side of the [cervix] in order to collapse the skull” and kill the fetus before it is born. … Another doctor testified he crushes a fetus’ skull not only to reduce its size but also to ensure the fetus is dead before it is removed. For the staff to have to deal with a fetus that has “some viability to it, some movement of limbs,” according to this doctor, “[is] always a difficult situation.”

[Thus PBA, which was one of the quickest ways to kill the baby, was also the most difficult to witness for staff, the pro-life community, and the general public. Other late-term techniques that remain legal are typically more painful for the child and impose longer suffering, but are less visibly obvious as the murder of a living child. This ban has no authority to save a single child’s life, but what it does unwittingly is to push the crime of late-term abortion back into the darkness of the womb, where it lurks out of the public consciousness.]

p. 9, I (A)
Doctors also may abort a fetus through medical induction. The doctor medicates the woman to induce labor, and contractions occur to deliver the fetus. Induction, which unlike D&E should occur in a hospital, can last as little as 6 hours but can take longer than 48. It accounts for about five percent of second-trimester abortions before 20 weeks of gestation and 15 percent of those after 20 weeks. Doctors turn to two other methods of second-trimester abortion, hysterotomy and hysterectomy, only in emergency situations because they carry increased risk of complications. In a hysterotomy, as in a cesarean section, the doctor removes the fetus by making an incision through the abdomen and uterine wall to gain access to the uterine cavity. A hysterectomy requires the removal of the entire uterus. These two procedures represent about .07% of second-trimester abortions.

p. 10, I (B)
Congress found, among other things, that “[a] moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion … is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.” Second, and more relevant here, the Act’s language differs from that of the Nebraska statute struck down in Stenberg.

p. 11, I (B)
[Quoting Congress’ 2003 PBA Act]

This subsection does not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother…

[A doctor trying to save the mother’s life never has to stop to first intentionally kill the baby. The PBA ban from its inception never had even the possibility of preventing a single abortion, and yet even at that, it contains horrendous and destructive particulars and precedents.]

pp. 15-16, II
[Any legal process, ruling, or law that violates Do not murder is inherently lawless and should be opposed. Meanwhile, this Section II excerpt implies that at least one justice in the future may rule against abortion itself (at least late-term), but is overruling and violating for now the ultimate legal principal Do not murder.]

We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State “may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy.” … It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden which exists if a regulation’s “purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” … On the other hand, “[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman’s exercise of the right to choose.” … Casey, in short, struck a balance…. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar.

p. 16, III
[Implies the AG could expand his opposition to abortion in another case.]

In this litigation the Attorney General does not dispute that the Act would impose an undue burden if it covered standard D&E.

p. 17 III (A)
…the Act’s definition of partial-birth abortion requires the fetus to be delivered “until… in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.”

[This could produce gruesome new abortion techniques, such as delivery to the naval, then killing the baby by stabbing him from belly to heart, or cutting off his legs for him to bleed to death, prior to final “extraction.”]

p. 17 III (A)
For purposes of criminal liability, the overt act causing the fetus’ death must be separate from delivery. And the overt act must occur after the delivery to an anatomical landmark.

[The PBA Ban Act and this ruling permit the abortionist to remove the baby up to the navel, and then kill him.]

p. 18 III (A)
If a living fetus is delivered past the critical point by accident or inadvertence, the Act is inapplicable. …no crime has occurred.

[The abortionist can still perform a text-book PBA if he was attempting to remove the baby only to the navel, but it unintentionally slipped out farther, as Planned Parenthood testimony claims occurs occasionally when dilation is greater than expected. Of course an abortionist would have few witnesses to this, and could claim any intent, and possibly continue to perform PBAs as desired. As a bad law goes, this PBA ban never had even the possibility of preventing a single abortion, and further, it’s not even a very effective prohibition of the procedure itself.]

p. 20, III (C)
We next determine whether the Act imposes an undue burden, as a facial matter, because its restrictions on second-trimester abortions are too broad… The Act prohibits intact D&E… it does not prohibit the D&E procedure in which the fetus is removed in parts.

p. 20, III (C) (1)
The Act’s intent requirements, however, limit its reach to those physicians who carry out the intact D&E after intending to undertake both steps at the outset.

p. 20, III, (C), (1)
The Act excludes most D&Es in which the fetus is removed in pieces, not intact.

[Late-term abortion remains legal. Throughout the 15 years that millions of Christian pro-lifers supported this effort, many, if not most, were led to believe that this PBA ban was going to outlaw all late-term abortions. The responsibility for that flow of misinformation and the wasted years, money, and blood, lies squarely with our local and national pro-life ministries, our “conservative” media personalities, and our Christian and pro-life leaders.]

p. 21, III (C) (1)
The statute in Stenberg prohibited “‘deliberately and intentionally delivering into the vagina a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof…” … Congress, it is apparent, responded to these concerns because the Act departs in material ways from the statute in Stenberg. It adopts the phrase “delivers a living fetus,” …instead of “‘delivering… a living unborn child, or a substantial portion thereof…”

[The court identified changes in the PBA bans that help it meet with their approval, and they first list the change of “child” to “fetus.” This ruling has no positive moral component, but is merely regulatory.]

p. 21, III (C) (1)
[concurring with their Stenberg ruling from 2000:]

D&E will often involve a physician pulling a ‘substantial portion’ of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the vagina prior to the death of the fetus.”

p. 22, III (C) (1)
the removal of a small portion [such as “say, an arm or leg”] of the fetus is not prohibited.

p. 23, III (C) (1)
The fatal overt act must occur after delivery to an anatomical landmark [the navel]…

[As long as the abortionist delivers the baby only to his navel, killing him at that point remains absolutely legal, and according to the justices, it is that very fact that leads them to uphold this PBA ban.]

p. 24, III (C) (2)
…respondents say… doctors cannot predict the amount the cervix will dilate before the abortion procedure. It might dilate to a degree that the fetus will be removed largely intact. To complete the abortion, doctors will commit an overt act that kills the partially delivered fetus. Respondents thus posit that any D&E has the potential to violate the Act… Brief for Respondent Planned Parenthood… This reasoning, however, does not take account of the Act’s intent requirements, which preclude liability from attaching to an accidental intact D&E.

[“Accidental” partial-birth abortions remain legal, and the great majority of such “accidents” would likely never even be reported to authorities by the abortion clinic staff or the mother.]

[“Accidental” partial-birth abortions remain legal, and the great majority of such “accidents” would likely never even be reported to authorities by the abortion clinic staff or the mother.]

p. 26, III (C) (2)
[Now that the court has upheld the PBA Ban Act, the law will simply be]

Respondents have not shown that requiring doctors to intend dismemberment before delivery to an anatomical landmark [past the navel] will prohibit the vast majority of D&E abortions. [Therefore, exactly because late-term abortion remains legal with this ruling, the justices reasoned:] The Act, then, cannot be held invalid

p. 26, IV
Under the principles accepted as controlling here [principles which violate, Do not murder], the Act, as we have interpreted it, would be unconstitutional “if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”

p. 26, IV
The question is whether the Act, measured by its text in this facial attack, imposes a substantial obstacle to late-term, but previability, abortions. The Act does not on its face impose a substantial obstacle

p. 27, IV (A)
Under our precedents it is clear the State has a significant role to play in regulating the medical profession.

[This majority upheld this ruling because it is merely “regulating” a technique. As to the actual issue of the personhood of the child, and the murder of the innocent, consider what Justice Antonin Scalia said on Feb. 4, 2002 at a Pew Forum on Religion, Politics, and the Death Penalty.

“[T]he only one of my religious views that has anything to do with my job as a judge is the seventh commandment – thou shalt not lie. … I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade. … One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong…”

All Christians should grieve at this. That is not pro-life, it is pro-choice, by process. Scalia, a hero of the pro-life community, hereby grotesquely rejects God’s enduring command, Do Not Murder, as the most fundamental of all legal principles. What is the good of not lying, if you then honestly rule to kill the innocent? Our pro-life and Christian leaders have turned the wicked humanist values of moral relativism and legal positivism into the greatest obligation of government. And many conservative judges, who grew up with an inclination toward Judeo-Christian morality and absolutes, could have developed into heroes of life, but instead, they utterly destroy the ultimate legal defense of the unborn, which is not based upon following an arbitrary, man-made, legal process, but only upon personhood and the God-given right to life.]

p. 29, IV (A)
…some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used, confining themselves to the required statement of risks the procedure entails. From one standpoint this ought not to be surprising. Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety preceding invasive medical procedures become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue.

[Kennedy, affirmed by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, thus trivializes the grotesque particulars of ripping apart a living baby by comparing it to getting queasy by talk of incisions and blood.”]

p. 30, IV (A)
The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.

[This Gonzales v. Carhart opinion is NOT a pro-life victory. To claim so is ignorance or worse. And Colorado Right To Life is committed to dispelling any such ignorance from the movement. There will be opposing camps, but neither side will be able to claim ignorance to the radically pro-abortion findings of this PBA ruling, nor to the utter inability of the PBA ban to protect a single unborn child.

Regulating murder is always wrong, and we find it here to be foolhardy also, and the error of regulating murder is not only evident in the ill-conceived PBA ban, but in every example of compromised incrementalism where “pro-life” laws further erode the personhood of the child by concluding with the meaning, “and then you can kill the baby.”

The “conservative” Supreme Court justices are NOT “moving toward life” as our leaders claim. Rather, the pro-life campaign around the ban, and now around its ruling, is instead a public relations ploy to convince pro-lifers that our ministry leaders are effective and worthy to receive continued donations and support. These justices actually make their own public relations suggestion, that the abortionists might find a less shocking method to kill older children. Congratulations to the ACLJ and Jay Sekulow.]

p. 30, IV (A)
It is objected that the standard D&E is in some respects as brutal, if not more, than the intact D&E…

[After making this observation, the justices do not even attempt to rebut this objection. Their only comment has to do, not with the brutality against the child, but with “the public’s perception.” Of course, PBA was less “brutal” (it was far quicker and more painless) than the more common, painful, prolonged, and now legally preferred, techniques to kill older kids. Perhaps our Christian leaders will now launch a new 15-year campaign to outlaw some other method, and while they unwittingly continue to undermine the personhood of the child, we will spill the blood of another 20,000,000 kids, after which we pro-lifers can all celebrate another great victory.]

p. 30-37, IV (B) [This section regards PBA and the “health of the mother.”]

p. 33, IV (B)
Physicians are not entitled to ignore regulations that direct them to use reasonable alternative procedures.

[Typical of the extreme hubris of humanism, even the “conservative” justices feel safe ignoring God’s enduring command, Do not murder, but no abortionist should dare ignore their regulation on how to kill a child. This is the fruit of a quarter-century of Christian legal-positivism on “our own” judges. Thus these “pro-life” judges refer to “the removal of a small portion [such as “say, an arm or leg”] of the fetus” as a “reasonable alternative” procedure.]

p. 33, IV (B)
In Casey the controlling opinion held an informed-consent requirement in the abortion context was “no different from a requirement that a doctor give certain specific information about any medical procedure.”

[Fifteen years after pro-lifers celebrated our misguided “Casey” effort, the “conservative” justices, conditioned by our own pro-life efforts, are more entrenched than ever in viewing abortion as a regulatory matter and having NOTHING to do with personhood or a God-given right to life.]

p. 34, IV (B) [partly quoting the National Abortion Federation as though it were legitimate:]

“[e]xperts testifying for both sides” agreed D&E was safe.

[“Pro-life” justices call D&E safe? It has a greater than fifty percent fatality rate.]

“[e]xperts testifying for both sides” agreed D&E was safe.

p. 34-35, IV (B)
If the intact D&E procedure [PBA] is truly necessary in some circumstances, it appears likely an injection that kills the fetus is an alternative under the Act that allows the doctor to perform the procedure.

[Some pro-lifers who actually read this ruling weep upon realizing they squandered the blood of children killed by partial-birth abortion on a sham victory. Consistent with past behavior, it is likely that many pro-life leaders will not read this ruling either, making it easier for them to celebrate what is actually evil.]

p. 35, IV (B)
…the Act… does not construct a substantial obstacle to the abortion right.

[Gonzales v. Carhart also here calls abortion rights “constitutional rights,” and throughout the ruling reaffirms the “right” to kill an unborn child, further entrenching child killing in legal precedent, and even in the precedent of “conservative” judges, who have a far greater commitment to their own wicked rulings than to God’s enduring command, Do not murder. Thus, every time pro-lifers give “our own” justices an opportunity to regulate child-killing, by the force of judicial arrogance, we push those justices even farther from ever outlawing abortion based upon personhood and the God-give right to life.

p. 36, IV (B)
…legitimate abortion regulations [fall] under the Commerce Clause…

[In reality, to the extent the U.S. Constitution is just, it’s preamble guarantees its protections to “our posterity,” and Amendment V requires that “No person shall be… deprived of life… without due process of law,” meaning the government cannot authorize an innocent person to be maimed or killed. Killing innocent children only involves the Commerce Clause for those devoid of moral conscience. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Antonin Scalia, in his brief “concurring” opinion, mentioned that the between abortion regulation and the Commerce Clause was “outside the question presented” to the court in this case.]

p. 37-38, V
[This Section addressed the “life of the mother” exception to the PBA ban.]

…the proper means to consider exceptions [to the ban] is by as-applied challenge. The Government has acknowledged that preenforcement, as-applied challenges to the Act [are] the proper manner to protect the health of the woman if it can be shown that in discrete and well-defined instances a particular condition has or is likely to occur in which the procedure prohibited by the Act must be used… The Act is open to a proper as-applied challenge in a discrete case.

p. 38, V
No as-applied challenge need be brought if the prohibition in the Act threatens a woman’s life because the Act already contains a life exception.

[Of course, if a mother’s life were truly at risk, the doctor would never need to further complicate matters by delaying delivery of the baby long enough to first kill it. Further, doctors often perform a Caesarian section in an emergency, and that of course requires no intermediate step to intentionally kill the baby.]

-End of Excerpts-

We conclude this summary with an example of how pro-life ministries are already misrepresenting Gonzales v. Carhart. Nikolas Nikas, president of the pro-life Bioethics Defense Fund, praised this ruling with a celebratory press release which opened with this quote from the decision:

“The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.” – Justice Kennedy, majority opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart issued 4/18/2007

The Bioethics Defense Fund misleads pro-lifers even with this quote, which is NOT a new finding. (It appears in the ruling at p. 27, Section IV (A).). The justices regurgitate this from the 1992 Casey decision, and since that decision celebrated by pro-lifers as a victory 15 years ago, U.S. abortionists have killed 20,000,000 children. The current decision is purely regulatory, and further destroys personhood and the child’s right to life.

Leaders and Ministries Celebrating the Ruling
National Right to Life: “applauds… ruling”
Americans United for Life: “praises ruling”
Priests for Life: “we are grateful”
Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America: “Court votes to protect babies from painful abortion”
Toney Perkins, Family Research Council: “we applaud the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today”
Paul Schenck of D.C.’s National Pro-Life Action Center: “the Court… has begun to right a terrible wrong”
Troy Newman of Operation Rescue: “celebrates the… ruling… and hails the victory”
The Christian Coalition: “commends the five justices”
Andrea Lafferty, Director, Traditional Values Coalition: “Unborn babies have won the right not to be slaughtered”
Rob Schenck, National Clergy Council: “the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade.”
American Family Association Gregory Rummo article: “reason has prevailed”
Liberty Counsel: “shot of adrenaline to the pro-life movement”
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “welcomes [the] decision”
Alliance Defense Fund: “a ruling for common sense and the rule of law”
Beverly LaHaye, founder CWA: “justice was served”
D. James Kennedy’s Center for Reclaiming America: “good news for unborn children… enormously good news”
Jay Sekulow of American Center for Law & Justice: “happy to report… a significant victory”
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family: “We thank God for this victory that affirms the value of human life”

Leaders and Ministries Condemning the Ruling
Ambassador Alan Keyes
American Life League and president Judie Brown
Editor Jim Rudd of CovenantNews.com
Operation Save America / Operation Rescue and director Flip Benham
John Archibald, founding board member, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life
Dr. Charles Rice, Professor Emeritus of Law at the University of Notre Dame
Editor John Lofton of The American View
Calvary Chapel South Denver pastor Gino Geraci
Ken & Jo Scott of ProLife Colorado
Crossroad Baptist Church pastor Chuck Baldwin
TheologyOnline.com (Google 8 of 30,100,000 for: theology)
Missionaries to the Preborn and founder Matt Trewhella
Colorado Right To Life and president Brian Rohrbough

(Other ministries wishing to be added to the list condemning the ruling, please email your contact information.)

The partial birth abortion ban has no authority to save even a single child but instead it pushes the killing of late-term babies back into the darkness and out of public view. Thus we have squandered the blood of every child killed by partial-birth abortion using their deaths, not to push for a law that will save any children, but for publicity. And we have helped the abortion industry present itself as more humane by robbing ourselves of the most powerful visual weapon we would ever have to convince people of the wickedness of abortion, namely, the blood of the children being killed out in the open for all to see.

Christ has saved us, those of us who trust in Him. But He has not yet redeemed our flesh, which draws all of us toward sin, until we go to be with the Lord. Rank-and-file pro-lifers must raise their voices to insist that our leaders stop misleading us about pro-life strategy. The children deserve better.

Pastor Bob Enyart
Bob Enyart Live
Denver Bible Church
(For Colorado Right to Life)
Please sign the CRTL pledge
titled 40 Years/50 Million Dead/One Commitment.


Commentary Index

Back to The Covenant News

Covenant News | Pro-Life News | Freedom of Speech | Politics | Aboms.com | Court News Report