US abortion history through PBA Ban decision; legal critique of Open Letter to Dobson

These are notes I took from a speech yesterday, "Abortion jurisprudence from Roe to Carhart II," by Clarke Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, at its legal institute:

America abided by English law from 1600 to the 1800s.

Around 1600 homicide law began to deal with only born human beings. Abortion law dealt with unborn human beings. The notion of "quickening" was the best knowledge anyone had of knowing a woman was pregnant. The law couldn't do anything if it didn't know the unborn child was alive.

The American colonies adopted these laws, called "common law," in the 1800s.

background2.jpg

The first state passing an abortion law was CT in 1821. Between 1821 and the end of the 19th Century, other state legislatures did, too. Most states prohibited abortion except to save life of mother.

That was the status of abortion law until the 1960s. In 1967 states began adopting exceptions....

By 1970, 14 states allowed broader or narrower exceptions. On the eve of Roe v. Wade, however, 30 states still prohibited abortion.

It's interesting to note no states repealed or removed abortion law in the 1971-72 legislative sessions. The abortion reform movement was kind of spent.

Nevertheless, the Supremes thought they were riding a wave, and in January 1973 they eliminated all abortion laws in all 50 states. No state abortion law was broad enough.

Roe v. Wade said there was a right to abortion. There could be no prohibition of abortion at viability and up to birth.

The Doe v. Bolton decision, handed down the same day, established a broad definition of "health."

The full implications of Roe and Doe only slowly came to be known.

The decisions of Roe and Doe were vague. Aside from being clear abortion could not be prohibited in the first trimester, the Supremes left all other questions unanswered.

After eliminating state abortion laws, the Supremes said states could pass undefined regulations. This ambiguity formed the basis for the 28-29 abortion cases that have gone before the Supremes since.

In the Roe decision, there are the two holdings, and the rest of the 75+ pages were reasons for the decision. Most of those pages were history.

roe.jpg

Why did the Supremes go into history? Because Blackmun was trying to create the argument that abortion laws in 18th and 19th Centuries only did so to protect women from unsafe procedures. He maintained we knew now they were safe and didn't need them. He said the laws weren't intended to protect the unborn.

Lawyers call that historical rationale "substantive due process," or the historical argument for traditional laws against abortion.

The second holding of the Court in Roe was the unborn were not protected by the Constitution.

To overturn Roe, both holdings must be overturned.

In the 1992 Casey decision, the Supremes threw out history, because they knew there was no historical rationale for the right to abortion.

Since 1992 no Supreme Court justice has tried to argue the abortion right has any foundation in American history.

They even threw out the "right to privacy" in 1992, and the Court hasn't talked about privacy since.

The court replaced that rationale with a sociological rationale. Instead of saying the right was created based on history, they said women had come to rely on abortion. The court began to rely on "liberty."

This was perhaps because privacy is not in the Constitution but liberty is. Or perhaps the Supremes were trying to lay a firmer foundation.

This is the position of the Court now, that it is a back-up to contraception.

That new rationale in Casey is the key obstacle we have to overturn Roe on the Supreme Court.

casey.jpg

In the 1992 Casey decision, the Supremes also changed the standard of review, the standard by which the courts judge the validity of state legislation.

There are three standards: High, medium and deferential. If the courts adopt deferential review, most laws would stand. Up until 1992, the Supremes held a very high standard. In 1992, they said they were going to apply an intermediate standard, but that never materialized.

The strict standard held in 2000 and struck down 30 state partial birth abortion laws. That standard held until April 18, 2007. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the pba ban decision, the Court went back to the Casey decision in a sense.

On April 18, Kennedy basically said, "We're going to allow states to pass greater regulations." I think if the five stay together (Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas), the states could pass any prohibition that makes medical sense, and it would be ok with the Court.

The Gonzales decision indicates the court is beginning to look at the sociological impact of abortion on women. Ginsburg's dissent indicated she would shift the argument again to equal protection an equal representation.

The science of fetal development would have no bearing on the four pro-Roe Supremes (Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter). They are absolutely committed to abortion despite any facts. They say women need abortion.

Since Roe there have been numerous books and articles critiquing Roe and Doe.

The Open Letter to James Dobson was unfortunately based on misreading and a complete misunderstanding of the Gonzales decision. The Open Letter quoted parts of the decision as approving of abortion when, in fact, it was responding to Ginsberg's dissent.

The Open Letter writers also misunderstood how the Supremes work. To win any case you have to have five. Kennedy controlled the outcome. He controlled the minimal standard. He wrote the minimal standard and determined at what level that was, and the other four had to go along with that. But there were a lot of hedges he wrote into the Gonzales decision. He didn't say Roe was the law of the land, for instance. The decision was very deftly written.


Comments:

Is "need abortion" part of the "good for women" leg of the stool, or is there a fourth leg now?

Posted by: Cameron at June 20, 2007 9:26 PM


Coincidentally, I just posted Dr. Harrison's "leg of stool" answers.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 20, 2007 9:40 PM


Jill, it would benefit you, me, and all of your readers, and probably the whole pro-life movement if you would do an interview with Bob Enyart. Is this something you would be willing to do? We could get rid of any misconceptions, get the arguments straight, and make some progress on this thing.

Posted by: Will D at June 20, 2007 10:11 PM


Jill, where could I hear this speech?

Posted by: Will D at June 20, 2007 10:30 PM


"Why did the Supremes go into history? Because Blackmun was trying to create the argument that abortion laws in 18th and 19th Centuries only did so to protect women from unsafe procedures."

and he wanted to impress his radical leftist elitist snobby friends from the Georetown district of DC. As Nixon was suspicious about him from the begining ....

Posted by: jasper at June 20, 2007 10:39 PM


the arrogance of stuck up self absorbed judges:

from NRTL....

"The 1979 book The Brethren, by Bob Woodward, Scott Armstrong, and Al Kamen, based on interviews with Supreme Court justices and clerks, and the papers of Justice Thurgood Marshall released in 1993, have already painted a detailed picture of how seven Supreme Court justices imposed the legalization of abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "We expect that the Blackmun papers will further flesh out the story of how seven justices took it upon themselves to operate as a super-legislature, effectively amending the Constitution in order to achieve the policy result they desired, which was legalized abortion on demand. They negotiated over the scope of the right that they were inventing, and then argued over what language in the Constitution they could use to justify their policy. The memoranda between justices that were released with the Marshall papers read like memos among the staffers on a congressional committee, drafting a statute."

Posted by: jasper at June 20, 2007 10:45 PM


Jasper, very interesting. It reminds me of an additional point Clarke made. He said in actuality we need 6 or 7 strict constructionist judges to overturn Roe resoundingly. If there are only 5, there is a risk in a couple years with one judge change, they'll overturn that.

Will, I will ask today if tapes will be available. As for speaking with Bob, I tried, privately, before any of this blew up.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 6:36 AM


Jill, he gets hundreds of emails a day and its hard to keep up with everyone, especially with his busy travel schedule. (Speaking engagements, etc.) I really think it would be beneficial to do a radio interview (notice I'm not saying debate) with you. I'd highly encourage you to do so, as I'm sure your readers would too.

Posted by: Will D at June 21, 2007 7:10 AM


"Blackmun himself stated in Roe v. Wade, �If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant�s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus� right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.� And the pro-aborts agreed: Blackmun�s next statement is, �The appellant conceded as much on reargument.�

Posted by: lesforlife Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 7:12 AM


Will, I wrote him a private email. He wrote in response he would consider my thoughts and get back to me. He did not. I wrote him again before I went public with my thoughts, alerting him I was about to do so. He did not respond. I waited 3 days longer than I originally said I would before going public.

Leslie, if you read my notes, you'll see Clarke in his talk acknowledged that as one of the two holdings of Roe. Both holdings must be answered for Roe to be overturned. One problem is that over time the Court has morphed interpreting what Roe originally said to say abortion equals "liberty," which will be hard to combat.

As for the humanity of preborn humans, Ginsburg in particular acknowledges a preborn baby is human and doesn't care. Read Ginsburg's dissent.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 7:34 AM


To me, the main point of the Open Letter to James Dobson was this--the pro-life movement spent fifteen years trying to get a law passed, that has no authority to save one baby. Not one. And, that's according to James Dobson, Mark Cruther and others. To me, that was devasting. And, then, many in the Body of Christ, praised the ruling. When James Dobson, and others thanked God, I was devasted again. I used to think Dr. Dobson was the guy to lead us on this issue. Now, I wonder if he even read the ruling. And, it grieves me to say that.

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 8:05 AM


Mark,

Hey, it's not the best, but we have to take what we can get. I would've prefered a bill that banned all abortion >20 weeks (even though no abortion should be legal).

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 8:18 AM


Hi Jill,

knowing the history of abortion in US law, has been most helpful. We seem stymied by ... the fetus being considered as human in the legal sense. Such acknowledgement will be hard to come by, especially when a judge upholding Roe states that he doesn't care.

therefore, as a method of 'education', a focus on fetal pain will have a scurrying of pro-life legislation, because everyone understands pain and do not look too fondly on the person(s) causing pain. Wouldn't an attempt to pass legislation about paralleling the use on abortion ONLY when no fetal pain is felt by the fetus? .... kinda like drugging a convict on death-row before execution. Such a technical problem is not available to modern medical science and likely will not be.... Such comatose-causing drugs may be used now but their safety is questionable....

Please note, that this view does not even approach a definition of the personhood of the fetus ... but certainly does trump any personhood contra-arguments and will even override judicial complacency!

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 8:40 AM


Jasper, I know. I guess my point is this: The division within the pro-life ranks, is wrongly defined as "incrementalists vs. purists" (which is misleading). I think the division is better defined as: "those who follow God's Word vs. "secular reasion and strategy". I mean, come on. Clark Forsythe and the 4 points of prudence? (which Hitler could have answered yes to) Christians relying on Plato and Aristotle to develop strategy? Comporomising on God's word is a losing proposistion. In the pro-life movent we are also in the ministry of trying to bring people to Jesus Christ. Don't we undermine ourselves in that effort, pointing out Plato's strategy, and praising God for legislation that saves not one baby, and is more brutal?

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 8:41 AM


Jill, you're obfuscating. Since we're on Christian radio, we always like to tell people that getting into a private emial discussion takes hours and may only help one person. A short radio interview has the potential to help thousands and maybe more. Bob is more than willing to do a radio interview with you on the topic. Is this something you're willing to do or not? (Lynn Vincent of World magazine, US News & World Report Editor Dan Gilgoff, and Lori Vance, mother of Donna Joy, are all people who have openly disagreed with us, written on it and all have graciously come onto the show to discuss. All 3 shows went great and can be heard at KGOV.com)

Posted by: Will D at June 21, 2007 9:39 AM


Jill,

Thanks for providing these history lessons.

Thanks especially for shedding light on Casey v. Planned Parenthood:

In the 1992 Casey decision, the Supremes threw out history, because they knew there was no historical rationale for the right to abortion.

Since 1992 no Supreme Court justice has tried to argue the abortion right has any foundation in American history.

They even threw out the "right to privacy" in 1992, and the Court hasn't talked about privacy since.

The court replaced that rationale with a sociological rationale. Instead of saying the right was created based on history, they said women had come to rely on abortion. The court began to rely on "liberty."

This was perhaps because privacy is not in the Constitution but liberty is. Or perhaps the Supremes were trying to lay a firmer foundation.

This is the position of the Court now, that it is a back-up to contraception.

Indeed. This is what the Supreme Court's ruling said in Casey:

The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.

Take heed, fellow pro-lifers. If we fight abortion while simultaneously believing there is nothing wrong with contraception, we do so at our own peril.

As has been pointed out many times before by others much wiser than I, abortion is the fruit of contraception.

Posted by: John Jansen at June 21, 2007 10:23 AM


Somehow the tags in my previous comment got messed up when I posted it.

To avoid any confusion, the five paragraphs directly following the italicized paragraph should also have been italicized, as they are Jill's words, not mine.

Posted by: John Jansen at June 21, 2007 10:31 AM


mark b,

you must have some strange kinda faith where God whispers (shouts) a unequivocally clear answer to you. A joke goes like this... A man had a flood forcing him onto his roof. The water level continued to rise. A boat came along and offered him a ride. He said: 'God promised to protect my life, so I must decline your offer!' The water continued to rise forcing him to the very top of his chimney. Just then a helicopter came to pluck him from his perch. But the air crew heard the same spiel as the driver of the rescue-boat. The man drowned and arriving in heaven he asked God "Why, oh why did I drown .... You promised!" Then he heard "well, I sent a boat and a helicopter ..........???"

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 10:33 AM


"If we fight abortion while simultaneously believing there is nothing wrong with contraception, we do so at our own peril."


Here we go. The crazies are out again. No contraception, no abortion, probably no oral sex either. Not a world I want to live in.

Good luck with all that you guys. It's interesting following the internal debate of pro-life factions. Interesting because none of your goals will come to pass. Contraception and abortion will NEVER be illegal in the US.

Posted by: Hal at June 21, 2007 10:42 AM


Hal, why do you assume that because someone is opposed to birthcontrol they are opposed to sex?

My husband and I have used birthcontrol in the past, and I can tell you without question that our sex life is better without it.

Just because we embrace the reproductive aspect of sex, doesn't mean we hate sex and see it as some sort of punishing ends to a mean. It's sad that our society has so divorced sex from reproduction that they are no longer able to imagine that the two do not work against each other.

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 10:50 AM


If you believe a baby is a person, a human being, you cannot in good conscience write, encourage and help get laws passed that regulate their murder. Please insert the word Jew or Black for fetus next time you want to make a law and see if you still can stomach the law.

This approach that has been a colossal failure for at least 25 years is not the only way to do something. Think outside of the box that the pro-life industry has put you in.

Posted by: Lolita at June 21, 2007 11:06 AM


Amen, Lauren. A few years ago, when I was (not informed and) using the birth control pill, it pretty much diminished my sex drive. Which is ironic since the whole point of taking the pill is so that you can have more sex without worries, right? lol I mean, I absolutely felt that I could live forever without sex and that would be fine. It was really weird! And I hated it...and my husband hated it! It may not effect everyone this way, but it did for me. I also got depressed, gained weight, and a few other things happened as a result of the pill. I hated those side effects so bad that I stopped taking them within a few months.

It wasn't till a year ago that I realized some of the stuff about the birth control pill and my husband and I decided never again to use any birth control.

But I can guarantee we are not void of a sex life...far, FAR from it!!

Posted by: Bethany at June 21, 2007 11:20 AM


Guys have you heard about this?

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2007/06/20/pro-life-groups-to-honor-murderers/

It looks like some "pro-lifers" (They obviously aren't that) are doing a reinactment of a clinic shooting. To me that is really scary! Go over to feministe and tell them that we DO NOT support this!

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 11:31 AM


you must have some strange kinda faith where God whispers (shouts) a unequivocally clear answer to you. A joke goes like this... A man had a flood forcing him onto his roof. The water level continued to rise. A boat came along and offered him a ride. He said: 'God promised to protect my life, so I must decline your offer!' The water continued to rise forcing him to the very top of his chimney. Just then a helicopter came to pluck him from his perch. But the air crew heard the same spiel as the driver of the rescue-boat. The man drowned and arriving in heaven he asked God "Why, oh why did I drown .... You promised!" Then he heard "well, I sent a boat and a helicopter ..........???"

John, I have heard that before...that's a good analogy, and it really does bring home a terrific point.

Posted by: Bethany at June 21, 2007 11:33 AM


Lauren that IS scary ! I am heading there now.

Posted by: Bethany at June 21, 2007 11:38 AM


Will D,

I am amazed you keep bagering Jill to do an interview. The last I checked she was not a reporter.

But if there are "misconceptions and we need to get the arguments straight, and make some progress on this thing" it is because of your atrocious "campaign" to get Dr. Dobson.

Jill, I say wait until they have repented of their prideful sins before making any decisions.

Posted by: Andrew at June 21, 2007 12:20 PM


Andrew, you disappeared from our other discussion. What happened?

What sin should be repent of?

I don't see why Jill wouldn't want to do an interview. It's free publicity for her ministry on the most powerful Christian radio station in America.

Posted by: Will D at June 21, 2007 12:54 PM


Andrew, you disappeared from our other discussion. What happened?

What sin should we repent of?

I don't see why Jill wouldn't want to do an interview. It's free publicity for her ministry on the most powerful Christian radio station in America.

Posted by: Will D at June 21, 2007 12:54 PM


Jill,

"As for the humanity of preborn humans, Ginsburg in particular acknowledges a preborn baby is human and doesn't care. Read Ginsburg's dissent."

What the hell are you reffering to, and where are you reading it?? I can't find anything of the sort in the dissent, and one wonders if you've actually read even the summary at the end.

"In sum, the notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational. The Court's defense of the statute provides no saving explanation. In candor, the Act, and the Court's defense of it, cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this Court--and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives. See supra, at 3, n. 2; supra, at 7, n. 4. When "a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, the burden is undue." Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 952 (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (quoting Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 195 F. 3d 857, 881 (CA7 1999) (Posner, C. J., dissenting))."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380


Posted by: Cameron at June 21, 2007 1:07 PM


Will D.,

Repent of pride, Will. Then I think Jill should consider her options, but it does seem like she gave your Pastor a big chance to clearly explain himself.

I think it's interesting that you keep pestering her for this interview. Maybe a guilty conscious working here?

Posted by: Andrew at June 21, 2007 1:19 PM


John, you have got to tell me your world view. And, I don't consider my faith strange. "Do not kill the innocent" seems pretty reasonable. Enlighten me.

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 1:23 PM


John, your god offers no clear answers? I would call that strange. And, your story is stupid, based on a false premise, that God has promised to protect my life. Who said that? Jesus talked about children and milstones. And that seems pretty reasonable, too.

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 1:45 PM


I just found this while I was cruising around cyberspace. This is the kind of religious extremism that worries me.

From the LA Times, 9/26/01:

JOHN BALZAR
Righteous Terrorism, American-Style

He prayed, and his lord answered. With a plastic comb, as the man tells it, he finally jimmied open the lock on the jail door. He made his way into a crawl space and unbolted a ceiling drain. Clayton Lee Waagner was free. He fled into the cold of an Illinois night seven months ago.

For a while he was quiet. Some of his followers wondered whether he had made for a foreign country. Then Waagner surfaced on the Internet. He hadn't fled. He was here among us. He was getting ready. "I have been preparing and equipping myself for battle," he explained.

"God did not rescue me from life in prison for my pleasure. He freed me that I might lay down my life for His will. He freed me to make war on His enemy ... And a war it shall be." Waagner isanother righteous soldier in the terrorism business. He says he is about to attack.

Here is how he puts it:

"The government of the most powerful country in the world considered me a terrorist. The label set me aback at first. Then it struck me: They're right. I am a terrorist. ... A storm is gathering. You can hear its distant rumbling, but no one knows whom it will strike. But be sure, it will strike. ... It doesn't matter to me if you're a nurse, receptionist, bookkeeper or janitor, if you work for the murderous abortionist, I'm going to kill you."

To his followers, he asked for prayers. "God has done a mighty thing, but it has only just begun. Great things are to follow."

That was in June.

I recognize I am doing Clayton Waagner a service by publicizing his threats. What do terrorists want, anyway? To spread terror. But an old colleague of mine who is in the family planning business has encouraged me. Waagner's mug shot is already posted throughout the country in clinics and family planning centers. Maybe other Americans should be reminded that not all those out to terrorize this country are strangers from abroad. We grow them at home too.


Waagner is a particularly scary character, chiefly because authorities are unable to catch or contain him. He has slipped through their hands time and again. After a robbery, he eluded capture by climbing a tree. Dogs found him after his jail breakout, but he says he talked softly to them and they moved on. Earlier this month, he was involved in a traffic accident in Tennessee. Again he vanished, leaving a trail of crime.

He has been convicted of burglary and robbery and car theft and for being a criminal in possession of firearms. Police have found a bomb in his car. He is sought for a long string of offenses, including bank robbery. Just last week, a Memphis grand jury added still more charges. On Friday, the FBI put him on its 10 Most Wanted list.

So far, Waagner is not known to have followed through on his threats against abortion clinics. One of his children has been quoted as saying she thinks her father is just a hoodlum, not a killer.

Clinic workers are not reassured. He's got too many guns and his threats are growing more strident. His open letter posted on a Christian extremist Web site says he has decided against targeting doctors because they can afford protection. So he's menacing office workers: "These are the people who should worry about me. These are the people who need to get their heart right with their maker, whom they are about to meet."

The authenticity of this letter has not been determined, although family planning workers believe it's the work of Waagner. It is also not known whether statements posted on the site in support of Waagner represent the thinking of more than just a few people. In fact, Waagner himself is a big question mark. Is he truly a folk hero to fanatical anti-abortionists? Or a garden variety thug riding a streak of luck?

Two things are certain. First, Waagner is making good on his goal: "What I need to do is evoke terror." He has. Ask a secretary at a Planned Parenthood clinic what it's like to step out of the car and feel the hair rise on the back of her neck, wondering if Clayton Waagner isn't at that very instant squeezing back on the trigger of a hunting rifle pointed her way.

The second thing that we know? The federal government cannot be sure of stopping him.

Comment: It goes without saying that this terrorist, like Bin Laden and so many others, is doing God's work. "President" Bush also thinks he's doing God's work, and is also terrorizing a nation. Coincidence?

From an e-mail sent 10/16/01 (author unknown):

Let's all be reminded of the facts: 170 threatening envelopes were delivered to Planned Parenthood and other choice clinics across America, each containing threatening letters and white powder.

Thats ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY, by far the biggest threat to date in this war. Preliminary reports lay it at the feet of the nauseatingly insane Army of God (American-style).

The media is saying nothing about this. Nada. Zip. The Big Silence.

This was an attack on American women. Even if the envelopes contained baby powder, it is still terrorism and should be reported. Women use those places for prenatal and gynocological care ALL THE TIME. Women run those places. Multiply those people x 170.

Posted by: Skinhead Dan at June 21, 2007 2:33 PM


Andrew, I know some in the group, who critized Focus on the Family, have for some time (years) tried to warn Dr Dobson, out of love and respect, that the PBA ban would not save a single baby. Some basically pleaded to Dr. Dobson, through e-mails and such. Dr. Dobson is a busy man, so maybe he didn't have time to meet with the group. But they did meet, personally, with representatives of Focus with the same information and plea. And, now, Dr. Dobson comes out and admits that they were right. Not one baby saved. So regardless of what we hear about the PBA ban, now, is secondary to this question. After 15 years, and not one baby saved, is it unreasonable to even propose new strategy? Maybe this is a bad analogy, but as sports fans, it seems, we require more of our coaches and managers, than we do, as pro-lifers, of our leaders.

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 2:37 PM


Hi Mark b,

Perhaps you'll notice that we are not perfect creatures with free will ... and at times our judgement does get a bit skewed. My brothers and sisters are indeed killing our little brothers and sisters.... as we killed/kill Jesus every minute of every day.

It is very easy to divorce yourself from the realities of our faith by distancing others as a 'them'. I hurt from abortion not because it is contrary to a set of rules but because it is an attempt to snuff out human life ... in some sense saying we(killers) have a view that is more important than our Creator's.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 2:58 PM


Hey John, my point is this; what started this whole debate was that certain people in the pro life movement, were labled, by J. Stanek as "purely fanatical", and purists, not willing to aceept any incrementalism. And, that is not true. Now, when a pro life leader starts using Plato and Socarates, and the 4 points of prudence, my duty is to point that out, and frankly, why aren't you pointing that out?

Posted by: mark b at June 21, 2007 3:58 PM


Hal said:

"Good luck with all that you guys. It's interesting following the internal debate of pro-life factions. Interesting because none of your goals will come to pass. Contraception and abortion will NEVER be illegal in the US."

Hal, you're certainly not the first pro-choicer to have this knee-jerk reaction, and it's safe to say you won't be the last, either.

Reread my words that you quoted in your own comment:

If we fight abortion while simultaneously believing there is nothing wrong with contraception, we do so at our own peril.

Um, who said anything about making contraception illegal?

Personally, I'm not aware of any pro-lifer who is seeking to ban the sale of contraceptives. From a prudential standpoint, doing so would be manifestly stupid.

Alternatively, we would do well to look at the relative success of anti-smoking campaigns. Smoking has declined considerably over the past few decades, even though no one in the anti-smoking movement would seriously propose making smoking illegal. It seems to me a somewhat similar approach is called for regarding birth control.

Posted by: John Jansen at June 21, 2007 4:11 PM


"Alternatively, we would do well to look at the relative success of anti-smoking campaigns. Smoking has declined considerably over the past few decades, even though no one in the anti-smoking movement would seriously propose making smoking illegal. It seems to me a somewhat similar approach is called for regarding birth control."

You know, if you took a similar approach to abortion I could wish you well.

I sure don't advocate such an approach to birth control, but you're free to try. I think birth control should be more widespread, better designed, better educated about, and more effective.

Posted by: hal at June 21, 2007 4:25 PM


Mark B, this whole "not one baby saved" thing is pure garbage.

We have saved more than 2000 lives in Dallas alone through the efforts of the pro-life community and in the state of Texas we have seen a reduction in the numbers of abortions performed due to "evil" incremental legislation.

Sources: 2000 babies saved from abortion: http://www.prolifedallas.org/pages/convert_overview

From a high of 91,000 abortions in 1996 to now just at 77,000 in 2005. That, my friend, is a reduction and all done without "absolute" legislation.

Texas abortion numbers: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa/ab-usa-TX.html

Posted by: Andrew at June 21, 2007 4:30 PM


Last I checked, neither birth control, nor sex was listed as habit forming.

Posted by: Cameron at June 21, 2007 4:37 PM


Andrew, you make no sense.

First off, he's not my pastor, he's a radio talk show host.

Second, why would I have a guilty conscience? I'm baffled at you.

Third, what happened to you in our last discussion?

Fourth, the reason I want her to do it is because it would beneficial to the pro-life community.

Last, why does every pro-lifer think that a reduction in abortion is due to their pro-life legislation and nothing else?

Jill wouldn't deal with this, maybe you can.

Planned Parenthood Reports Record Abortions, High Profits in Fiscal '05-'06...
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070615a.html

Level of abortions reaches record high of 200,000 a year in UK...
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23401185-details/Level+of+abortions+reaches+record+high+of+200%2C000+a+year/article.do

Why do you think your compromised incrementalism is working in light of these facts?

Posted by: Will D at June 21, 2007 5:07 PM


I do not point fingers at anyone knowing that for every pointed finger there are three more pointing right back at me. It's called depreciation and people listen to a thoughtful voice rather than one spreading vehemence. Jill is a leader ... an imperfect leader just as I am an imperfect follower. Neither Jill nor I are the final arbiters in Divine Justice - but just as Jill is called to lead, I am called to follow.

Maybe, just maybe my faithfulness and prayers will help her select the proper path. Jesus spoke these words at the last supper 'I no longer call you servants but friends, because you know all things that I have done among you.' Be at peace. Stick around a while and you will find an incredible amount of love in this family.... oops, I mean site.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 5:30 PM


Will D:

I am in the midst of burying my sister-in-law, however, I took a few minutes to read this latest post.

As Cortinthians instructs us not to take our complaints against brothers and sisters in Christ before unbelievers, i.e., don't sue one another in a court filled with infidels, we should not be discussing family matters before non-believers on this site. We lose our witness. Just look at the post history. It is obvious that Cameron and Hal and just watching with glee at the escalating hostility. It's not right. I don't claim perfection here, just making an observation.

And just how many people are being led away away from Christ by escalating the debate here? We won't know until Judgement Day. In fact, when the deabate is analyzed in detail it appears to be semantically silly. It's a high price to pay to declare yourself right on ths issue. Pro-aborts are no less precious to God than the babies they murder, correct?.

I sugggest the debate be taken inside via private e-mails unless of course there are ulterior motives playing out here from all sides, If this is revealed as the case, I will then have to withdraw from posting on this site as integrity issues come into play for me and I won't be a part of it.

Posted by: HisMan at June 21, 2007 6:03 PM


Hi mark b and Will D,

An old joke: One day while flying a helicopter in very dense fog, the pilot got lost but knew if he made the wrong move, he could get killed. So he found an office tower window and wrote on a board this message: 'Where am I?' the message from the fellow in the tower said ... 'You're in a helicopter.'

Upon receiving this message, the pilot turned around and safely landed even though the heavy fog remained. Asked to explain, he said "I knew exactly where I was ... I had found the Microsoft Tower in Seattle ... only from Microsoft can you get information that is 100% accurate and totally useless!"

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 6:13 PM


Dan that's terrible. Has he been caught?

Posted by: Lauren Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 6:15 PM


Will D., maybe you should go back and re-read what I wrote. It is hard to miss, after all, but I suppose it's easier to change the subject.

I guess I did assume he was your pastor, so I take that one back. I actually have no idea who your pastor is.

You seem awfully desirous of "clearing the air" with Jill. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for this other than that maybe you and your position were not clearly represented in the rush to get Dr. Dobson.

And yes, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your obviously sincere desire to "do good" for the pro-life movement. It's worked wonders so far.

And I did not follow up on our last conversation because I, like you and most others on this site, our usually pre-occupied with working or studying.

Planned Parenthoods abortions may be up (so is their budget) but the overall rate in America is down. They are not the only ones that do abortions so I don't see how you can logically make your argument.

In the UK there is almost no pro-life movement to speak of, so it is certainly not surprising that their abortion rate continues to go up. But this is not connected to the use of prudential pro-life work, it has to do with almost no pro-life work at all!

HisMan, I have to confess of no ulterior motives other than to let the truth about the reality of abortion in America come forward. I do, however, feel the need to correct those who are in error as you have done in the past (admirably, I must admit.)

Posted by: Andrew at June 21, 2007 7:41 PM


SkinHead Dan: I don't think it's fair to call Clayton Lee Waagner or President Bush terrorists. I don't think he been convicted of anything... He's just fustrated with all the killing going on at the evil planned parenthood, maybe he's insane and taking it a little too far, which I disagree with. Bin Laden is killing innocent people.

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 7:56 PM


I think we have to be careful that Clayton Lee Waagner's civil rights are not being violated...


I mean, the unborn, they have no civil rights....

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 7:58 PM


"I'm for applying this principle to ALL terrorists, whether Muslim or Irish or right-to-lifers or whatever terrorist group they represent. If they terrorize, someone should counterterrorize their families."

Does this apply to abortionists too? I still don't agree this is the way...

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 8:45 PM


Will D,

Jill won't get on the radio because she cannot Biblically support her position. It is interesting how many people oppose doing things Biblically. That is because they have combined their secular humanism with The Bible and that can get confusing.

Incremental laws (again, this has been said over and over) can be done without compromise.

Posted by: Lolita at June 21, 2007 8:48 PM


DD, Karen Hill didn't kill anybody but "tiller-the-baby-killer" has killed many. I don't understand.

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 8:48 PM


Why will not one person answer this?

If you believe a baby is a person, a human being, you cannot in good conscience write, encourage and help get laws passed that regulate their murder. Please insert the word Jew or Black for fetus next time you want to make a law and see if you still can stomach the law.

This approach that has been a colossal failure for at least 25 years it is not the only way to do something. Think outside of the box that the pro-life industry has put you in.

Posted by: Lolita at June 21, 2007 11:06 AM

Posted by: Lolita at June 21, 2007 8:50 PM


Lolita,

I agree, but we have to get something passed. If it were just Republicans and good judges (Like Scalia, Thomas, etc) running the show, we could do that. We have to get what we can.

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 8:56 PM


House votes today to lift abortion aid ban:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070622/ap_on_go_co/congress_abortion_20;_ylt=A9G_RoKDMXtGVm8B3SOB_YEA

Voting in favor of expanding abortion aid were 207 Democrats and 16 Republicans. Voting against it were 24 Democrats and 177 Republicans.

Veto time President Bush.....

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 9:22 PM


Planned Parenthood accused in woman's death
Lawsuit says clinic worker triggered 'raging systemic infection:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56290

Posted by: jasper at June 21, 2007 9:58 PM


Many of the Republican appointed justices the pro-life
industry lauds, could have been found guilty at
Nuremberg.

This is well documented in the dvd "40 Years in the Wilderness,"
available on coloradorighttolife.org

Posted by: lesforlife Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 10:53 PM


Will, I contacted Bob privately wanting to dialogue privately with my thoughts on his Open Letter. He emailed back he would consider my thoughts and respond, and he did not. I appreciate one can get busy. I sent a follow-up email and got no response. I waited three days after that before going public.

After that, you came to my blog as Bob's surrogate to literally call me an idiot, a fool, and an abortion participant.

And now you are taunting me to come on Bob's show to publicly discuss our differences when he didn't have the decency to respond to my sincere private request to talk?

You've got to be kidding. No.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 11:28 PM


And young Will, before you next time gleefully report PP committed more abortions than ever in 2005, as if that proves a point, check that number against population stats. The US had 1/3 less people in 1973: ~211 million.

http://www.infoplease.com/year/1973.html

If you know how to analyze data, get back to me with some ratios before spouting off again.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 21, 2007 11:43 PM


Hey Lesforlife,

Did you happen to read what Justice Thomas said in the ruling? ....He can only rule on what case is before him. He is not in the legislature....

Justice Thomas: (and Scalia concerring)
I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v.Wade ,has no basis in the Constitution.

Posted by: jasper at June 22, 2007 12:06 AM


"SkinHead Dan: I don't think it's fair to call Clayton Lee Waagner or President Bush terrorists. I don't think he been convicted of anything... He's just fustrated with all the killing going on at the evil planned parenthood, maybe he's insane and taking it a little too far, which I disagree with. Bin Laden is killing innocent people."

I can't say I agree, Jasper. In your opinion, Planned Parenthood is evil, and while I believe you are wrong, I do respect your right to an opinion, just as I have a right to mine. However, when a religious fanatic is willing to go far enough as to kill people in the name of a diety they worship even though the sixth commandment is "Thou shalt not kill," is more than a bit bothersome. I know that you can turn that right back around on a pro-choicer's point of view and say that killing the unborn is wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right now, do they?

Posted by: Skinhead Dan at June 22, 2007 12:14 AM


SkinHead Dan,

Comparing this guy to Bin Laden is reprehensible.

@LesforLife ( people for CRTL ):

I went to CRTL and read about their thoughts regarding the PBA act. I agree there is not a lot to show for 15 years in the making....I would still take 9 justice Thomas's over 9 justice Ginsberg's.

...and 100 Rick Santorem's over 100 Barbara Boxers.

I will continue to read the whole decision. But Yes, not alot to show for 15 years work. The Good news is: the press, discussion, awareness, etc, surrounding this Bill, hopefully the public will start wake up and realize just how bad abortion is.

You need to concentrate on people who are asleep on the issue of abortion. Attacking Jill Stanek, who has actually worked to get bills passed to protect Aborted Alive Babies is not the right way to go and a waste of time.

Posted by: jasper at June 22, 2007 12:55 AM


TDTC,

who cares.

Posted by: jasper at June 22, 2007 12:58 AM


Lolita is absolutely right when she says:

"If you believe a baby is a person, a human being, you cannot in good conscience write, encourage and help get laws passed that regulate their murder. Please insert the word Jew or Black for fetus next time you want to make a law and see if you still can stomach the law."

If the strategy Jill promotes (whatever name she wants to give to it) were used in Nazi Germany they would still be murdering Jews today. Only with more restrictions or "regulation".

Think about that for a minute Jill Stanek.

I can understand why Jill does not want to go on the air with Enyart. Enyart is one of the most skillful interviewers I have ever heard in my nearly 30 years of life. He asks specific AND general questions that requires the person who answers to show their hand. To show what they really believe and what they give the greatest priority. And he let's them talk and give their full response.

If Jill Stanek goes on the air and takes questions from Enyart things will be revealed that could not be revealed on a blog. The voice reveals things that aren't capable of being revealed through the written word.

If Jill went on the air with Enyart by the end of the show his and CRTL's position would be revealed to be correct and Jill and AUL's position based upon legal speculation would come out as morally vacuous. As if Jill were arguing that a law that stated rape is legal as long as you don't rape the girl in a specific manner is in some way a victory for women. Wait....that's basicly what Jill is arguing, except instead of rape its murder, which is even worse.

Posted by: Quinn at June 22, 2007 3:22 AM


I have TWO big questions that I would like to get a direct answer to from you Jill Stanek

QUESTION 1
I have a $1200 rebate coming to me soon. When I get that money which of the two options would be the best use of it for the purpose of bringing an end to the abortion holocaust in my area and the USA?

Option #1: Spend the money on training sidewalk counselors and on buyingg some big signs of aborted babies and have the youth I work with in my area use them outside of the killing centers in Northern Indiana to persuade moms and the public from killing their babies.

Option #2: Send the money to a pro-life lawyer at Americans United For Life or some other group who would use the money to argue cases concerning abortion laws in court.

QUESTION 2
Yesterday a journalist asked a friend of mine this question:

"Which would you rather have? A) For the Supreme Court to vote against the ban and abortionists continue to use the procedure? or B) For the Supreme Court to uphold the ban and ask the abortionists to use 'different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus' [that's a direct quote from Kennedy's opinion] that take longer and would cause more pain to the baby?"

My friend responded by saying "That is like asking me whether I prefer Jews to be killed by using gas or killed by using guns."

My second question for you Jill is, are these two questions asking the same thing?

Others can respond to the questions if they like :)

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at June 22, 2007 3:52 AM


********UPDATE********

Had to change Question 2. Instead of the second question above, I would like to get your answer to this one Jill Stanek.

Scalia and others have said that it would be "just as wrong for the court to make a law the opposite of Roe v Wade as it was to pass the Roe v Wade decision".

QUESTION 2
Do you adhere to this philosophy that it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to pass a law banning abortion for the entire nation because you believe that each individual state has the right to decide whether or not to legalize murdering babies in their state?

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at June 22, 2007 4:52 AM


Quinn/Zeke: You have the same IP address. Are you cloning yourself to bolster your support?

As I said previously, I privately appealed to Bob Enyart re: his Open Letter. He said he would respond and did not. My second appeal was ignored.

Then his surrogate staffer, Will, came as a guest on my blog to call me an idiot, fool, and abortion accomplice.

After all this, you're taunting me to publicly debate Bob on his show? Um, no. His history does not bode well for establishing trust. Your taunts as his apparent friends do not help in that regard.

Although Bob can publicly debate the audience here, if he'd like.

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 22, 2007 8:41 AM


Jill said, "Will, I contacted Bob privately wanting to dialogue privately with my thoughts on his Open Letter. He emailed back he would consider my thoughts and respond, and he did not. I appreciate one can get busy. I sent a follow-up email and got no response. I waited three days after that before going public.

After that, you came to my blog as Bob's surrogate to literally call me an idiot, a fool, and an abortion participant."

That's not why I came to the blog Jill, and the timing had nothing to do with your emails to Bob Enyart.

Jill said, "And now you are taunting me to come on Bob's show to publicly discuss our differences when he didn't have the decency to respond to my sincere private request to talk?

You've got to be kidding. No."

Jill, I'm not taunting you, I simply asked you because I thought it would be beneficial for everyone. I'm not sure why you're freaking out. Don't worry, I won't ask anymore. You wanted to talk, and now you don't. It's funny, but being in the radio business, I'm finding that people never want to talk on the air, but only behind their computer screens.

Jill said, "And young Will, before you next time gleefully report PP committed more abortions than ever in 2005, as if that proves a point, check that number against population stats. The US had 1/3 less people in 1973: ~211 million.

http://www.infoplease.com/year/1973.html

If you know how to analyze data, get back to me with some ratios before spouting off again."

I'm not sure what 1973 has to do with record numbers recorded in 2006. The US population in 2005 and 2006 were almost the same. A record in 2006 means more abortions than in 2005. I just found it interesting that you failed to mention it in your blog on the PP annual report. That's gotta be the biggest stat of all.

I had some heart to heart posts with Bethany and apologized for getting too emotionally involved at the beginning. The same apology should be extended to you. I don't know how much more blogging I'll be able to do, but hope you would be willing at some point to discuss the topic of our own pro-life laws keeping abortion legal after Roe is overturned. Thanks for your pro-life work.

Posted by: Will D at June 22, 2007 9:50 AM


Will, apology accepted. Glad for closure. Moving on....

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at June 22, 2007 10:07 AM


Will, I appreciate your apology to Jill...It makes me feel a lot better about where you're coming from.

Regarding this though:

"Jill, I'm not taunting you, I simply asked you because I thought it would be beneficial for everyone. I'm not sure why you're freaking out. Don't worry, I won't ask anymore. You wanted to talk, and now you don't. It's funny, but being in the radio business, I'm finding that people never want to talk on the air, but only behind their computer screens."

Jill has been on the radio many times to discuss her stance on abortion...you can read about some of those here:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/media_appearances/

I think that Bob's motives in wanting to discuss this with Jill publicly are not genuine. If he really cared about this issue, why can't he speak to her privately first? And why does he have to have you invite her and not himself? It seems a little fishy to me, and I feel that his motives are to try to trap her and twist her words...he could easily take part of something she says and post it as though she was intending to deceive...you know, kind of like he posted only part of the conversation with that lady from Focus on the Family? only half of what she said was posted,..the conversation was skewed in a way that implied that Focus on the Family is attempting to deceive people. When you see something like this, and you see only half truths being submitted through a site like that, you have to wonder about the motives of the individual involved.

I personally don't trust Bob Enyart if he doesn't care enough about this to talk to Jill personally first. If he's too busy, then he's just too busy.

That said, thanks for clearing up your intent with Jill though. I believe you are sincere.

Posted by: Bethany at June 22, 2007 10:18 AM


Bethany, thanks for your thoughts.

You said, "I think that Bob's motives in wanting to discuss this with Jill publicly are not genuine. If he really cared about this issue, why can't he speak to her privately first?"

This is tough, and you would definitely understand if you were in his shoes. He doesn't have time to have personal discussions with everyone unfortunately.

You said, "And why does he have to have you invite her and not himself?"

He didn't ask me to invite her, I did it of my own volition. I set up most of our interviews actually. As the GM, I determine what would be good and go for it. A lot of times Bob doesn't even find out he's doing an interview until it's already scheduled! And he doesn't mind that at all. FYI, Bob told me that he emailed Jill yesterday, personally, and asked if she would like to discuss pro-life strategy on the show. She refused.

You said, "It seems a little fishy to me, and I feel that his motives are to try to trap her and twist her words...he could easily take part of something she says and post it as though she was intending to deceive...you know, kind of like he posted only part of the conversation with that lady from Focus on the Family?"

Unfortunately for you and most other people for that matter, you don't know Bob Enyart. He's an incredible man that has dedicated his life to God and the unborn. No one has asked Jill to debate. This has been twisted on this site. An interview and a debate are entirely different. Lynn Vincent of World Magazine wanted to challenge Bob on things that he's been saying and Lori Vance did not. Listen to the two shows. They are completely different. Bob informed me that in his first email to Jill, he specifically said he didn't have a desire to debate her. As to the Focus call, it was not deceitful at all. She did make a mistake and Focus has admitted that.

You said, "only half of what she said was posted,..the conversation was skewed in a way that implied that Focus on the Family is attempting to deceive people."

This has been grossly misrepresented as well. The point of the Focus call was not to say that Focus was intentionally deceiving people. The fact was to show that the pro-life community has been misinformed, so much so, that even a Focus employee was confused! That's it. He explicitly said that she was not lying to us and that she was not told to say that, but that she actually believed that to be true.

You said, "I personally don't trust Bob Enyart if he doesn't care enough about this to talk to Jill personally first. If he's too busy, then he's just too busy."

If he doesn't have time to talk privately, that doesn't make him untrustworthy, just extremely busy. He's a lot bigger than people think, and that just means a lot busier. EVERYONE, literally, wants to just discuss things privately, and that's just not a reality.

I hope everything is going well with the baby.

Posted by: Will D at June 22, 2007 3:44 PM


Thank you, I appreciate that, Will...and thank you for your prayers as well. :-)
I should know something more by Monday, hopefully. :) I will be sure to update as soon as I know something.

Posted by: Bethany at June 23, 2007 6:57 PM


Having some good back-and-forth questioning and discussion on audio is much better than reading something on a blog because so much more is communicated through the audio than can be communicated through a blog. That's the main reason why anyone would want to discuss something with another person and get the audio on an mp3 or video.

Right now I'd just like to have the two questions I asked in the previous posts above answered.

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at June 24, 2007 12:19 PM


Jill and Bethany,

The issues about how the pro-life movement should proceed should not be done in secret and privately but out in the open for everyone to learn and benefit from. I did not see any specifics about why Bob or anyone else is not trustworthy except that personal communication did not occur.

Jasper says in two different posts:"Hey, it's not the best, but we have to take what we can get." and "I agree, but we have to get something passed. If it were just Republicans and good judges (Like Scalia, Thomas, etc) running the show, we could do that. We have to get what we can."

We should not pass a bad law just to get something passed. We end up hurting those we are trying to protect. The pro-life movement should have never relegated its strategy to lawyers. Lawyers do not know right from wrong. How many people have thought about the laws we pass and if they are right or wrong? Very few people evaluate the outcome. As noted in the posts about Fetal Pain, Jill cannot see any potential downside to legislation. There is always going to be a downside when we are regulating murder. This is a direct result of expecting lawyers to lead the pro-life movement. They don't deal in right and wrong. Christians should be leading the movement because the standard is what God says is right or wrong, not secular humanists that make up the majority of legal thought in America. A secular humanistic view does not give us the foundation to say anything is wrong.

Supreme Court Justices are the law. As such they could overrule any law that is unjust. We live in a lawless society since we have let judges decide that innocent people can be put to death. Remember it was judges who decided that blacks weren't people either in Dred Scott. And a judge put a man to death in Nazi Germany for the crime of hoarding eggs. That is obviously unjust. Doing what is right may cost them their job but, someone who fears God will take that risk to do what is right.

As for Thomas he is fine with homosexuality and Scalia admitted that if he were tried at Nuremberg he would be found guilty. Please tell me which one of these judges upholds the personhood of the child or even mentions personhood. None of them.

That is tragic. Stop having the lowest expectations possible and work on getting people who fear God and will uphold God's laws over man's laws when man's laws are unjust.

How many Republicans have said including GWB, that abortion is not a deciding factor in nominees to the court? Roberts said he didn't really have any opinions, who wants someone who cannot think enough to form an opinion?

We don't have to always take the scraps from the Republican trough.

Again, look at a law that you want to pass and see if you like the word Jew or Black substituted for fetus/baby. After inserting that, read it aloud and see if you still believe it to be the best law possible.

Can someone please point out the verse and any context that says do evil that good may come?

It will be interesting to see how many incrementalists will support The Personhood Amendment, most of them will dismiss if not actively work against it because and I quote, "It won't pass or the courts will kill it" and on and on it goes. Hope I will be wrong about that.

Posted by: Lolita at June 24, 2007 4:42 PM


Lolita, I wholeheartedly support the human life amendment, and any other amendment which allows the fetus to be legally given personhood.

The issues about how the pro-life movement should proceed should not be done in secret and privately but out in the open for everyone to learn and benefit from.

Christian brothers and sisters should not fight openly among unbelievers. Disputes like this should be handled privately so as not to put a stumbling block in others way.

Posted by: Bethany at June 25, 2007 12:06 PM