Monthly Archives: March 2014

Unmasking the Push to Terminate Children with Down Syndrome

Unmasking the push to terminate children with Down syndrome

<!– pat dup image remove attempt downsgirl5re End of remove dup image attempt –>

By Nancy Flanders

downsgirl5reIn Australia, much like the United States, only 5.3% of people diagnosed in the womb with Down syndrome are actually born. About 95% of people with Down syndrome are never given the chance to live their lives. That means 95% of parents who receive such a diagnosis for their child have given in to their fears and now live everyday with the pain of having ended their child’s life. asks, “Is this the beginning of the end for Down syndrome?”  And it very well could be.

In the article, which first appeared in QWeekend Magazine, the author visits with families of children and adults with Down syndrome. Each admitted to having initially struggled with the diagnosis, whether it came during the pregnancy or at birth. But none regretted their child, each boasting about their child’s accomplishments – from the five-year-old little girl learning to write to the adult who participates in international competitive swimming. Each of their stories leaves you wondering, what’s the big societal problem with people with Down syndrome?

There isn’t one.

Our society is overall supportive of everyone with any type of disability or health condition. From inclusive education to Special Olympics, the majority of us now treat people with different abilities with respect and kindness. Unless of course, those people are still in their mother’s womb.

It’s the common “out of sight, out of mind” mentality. If I can’t see it, it isn’t really happening.

But these are real people we’re talking about. Actual lives that are being ended because they have Down syndrome. There is no other reason. And just as society discriminated against people with Down syndrome in the past by labeling them “idiots” and placing them in institutions, society today discriminates against them by telling their parents to kill them. Despite the fact that there are new medical technologies to help them live healthier and longer lives. Despite the fact that there are numerous programs to help them lead more fulfilling lives. And despite the fact that families of people with Down syndrome and people with Down syndrome themselves report being happy with their lives.

Despite all of these advances and improved life outcomes, we no longer institutionalize people with Down syndrome, we actually kill them.

And it’s all thanks to pre-natal testing. And the less invasive and expensive it gets, the more people will die. Isn’t that the opposite of what medical advances are meant to do?

Instead of doctors informing parents of all the resources available to them and their child, they tell them only of the stereotypical negatives that are often associated with the condition. And they advise the parents to abort. One mother, Angela, says that her doctors were brilliant, however there was “overwhelmingly negative” advice being thrown at her and her husband. She was even told to leave her daughter behind and just walk away.

Parents, lost momentarily in their fears and mourning for the child they had planned on, can be too emotionally distraught to make a clear decision about their child’s life, and most end up aborting. Many will carry that pain with them through the rest of their lives.

We have to ask ourselves, are the medical field and society doing parents a disservice when we talk about abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities? Are we denying parents and entire families the joys that come with parenting, the triumphs that come with struggles, and the pride that comes with watching your child succeed when no one thought they would? By denying people with Down syndrome their very lives, are we denying ourselves happiness? Are we denying the evolution of a compassionate society? Are we headed backwards in our quest for diversity, inclusion and acceptance?

If the only words a doctor can offer her patients who receive the news of a pre-natal Down syndrome diagnosis are, “I’m sorry” and “You can terminate,” than yes, the medical community is causing emotional and mental harm to parents. And society is backing it up by repeatedly arguing for the right to allow abortion especially in the cases of humans with disabilities.

Call it bullying. Call it misguided intentions. But in the end, there’s a human being who has been denied his or her life and two parents who are suffering with the guilt. And this is only on track to continue until there is no longer a single person with Down syndrome on the planet. So much for inclusion and acceptance.

Editor’s note. Nancy is a work at home mom who writes about parenting, special needs children, and the right to life. She is the lucky mother of three spirited little girls, one who has cystic fibrosis, and she spends any free moment she can find fundraising for a cure for CF. This appeared at

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

NRL News Today

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

<!– pat dup image remove attempt End of remove dup image attempt –>


Individuals with Down syndrome are precious gifts to our world. Here are just a few reasons why they are so awesome!

1. They’re pointing out that every life has value.

They’re pointing out that every life has value.

2. They’re climbing Mt. Everest.

They’re climbing Mt. Everest.

A courageous young man from Oregon recently made history with the first recorded account of an American teenager with Down syndrome to reach a base camp of Mt. Everest.

3. They’re changing the face of fashion.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

6-year old Ryan Langston has appeared in a Nordstrom catalog and an ad for Target. “He’s a beautiful little boy and he does shine, he has a beautiful little light and I think that’s what people are seeing,” Ryan’s mother Amanda said.

4. They’re succeeding in business.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

Individuals with Down syndrome are breaking stereotypes into bits and pieces — from running a restaurant to launching a pottery business.

5. They’re starring in TV shows.

They’re starring in TV shows.

Actress Lauren Potter appears on Fox’s Glee.

6. They’re going viral on social media.

They’re going viral on social media.

This photo went viral on Facebook garnering thousands of Likes and Shares.

7. They’re being elected to public office.

They’re being elected to public office.

In 2013, Angela Bachiller became the first person with Down syndrome to be elected as a councilwoman. She now works at the Ayuntamiento (municipality) of Valladolid, Spain, and is expected to continue her political career.

8. They’re enriching the lives of those around them.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

Among 2,044 parents or guardians surveyed, 79 percent reported their outlook on life was more positive because of their child with Down syndrome.

9. They’re making incredible strides in education.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

Megan McCormick is the first person with Down syndrome to graduate with honors from a technical college in United States. This past May, Megan earned her degree in education and was at the top of her class at Bluegrass Community Technical College in Kentucky.

10. And teaching us new lessons about life every day.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

11. Like how to appreciate the little things.

Like how to appreciate the little things.

12. And to have a sense of humor.

And to have a sense of humor.

13. And that real love doesn’t count chromosomes.

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

14. Is there a limit to what people with Down syndrome can do?

14 Reasons Why People With Down Syndrome Are Awesome

Shameful veto, action needed ASAP

Shameful veto, action needed ASAP

Pro-life friend —

Here is the urgent situation at hand:   Last night, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin of West Virginia – who campaigned as a pro-life Democrat and won by a just a handful of votes – shamefully VETOED a compassionate 20 week abortion limit that had been passed by the legislature with overwhelming margins.   Now, because of Governor Tomblin’s betrayal of unborn babies and mothers, West Virginia law will continue to allow the killing of unborn children up to the moment of birth, for any reason.   Take Action: Let’s fill Governor Tomblin’s email box with outraged messages from all over the country and be a voice for the voiceless children he has betrayed.   To add to the betrayal, Governor Tomblin vetoed the bill right as pro-life activists from across the state were having their annual Rose Dinner to celebrate their victory and raise needed funds to continue the charge.   It was because of the tenacity of pro-life activists in West Virginia that this legislation passed by huge margins – 79 to 17 in the House, and 29 to 5 in the Senate.   But despite these huge margins, Governor Tomblin turned his back on the unborn and caved to the extreme abortion lobby in West Virginia. During his run for Governor, Tomblin campaigned as pro-life and it was because of his commitment to protecting the unborn that he won by just a handful of votes.   Take Action Now: Be a voice for the unborn children Governor Tomblin shamefully betrayed.   And be assured I will continue to keep you updated on the situation.   Thankful for your dedication to this cause,

Marjorie Dannenfelser President, Susan B. Anthony List

Contributions or gifts to Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible for Federal income tax purposes. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. All donations are made to the general treasury of the Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., and are not designated for any particular purpose. Donation will be used in the sole discretion of the Officers and/or Board of Directors in accordance with the mission and purposes of the SBA List.

NAACP and Hollywood Celebs Receive Big Abortion’s Highest Honor

NAACP and Hollywood Celebs Receive Big Abortion’s Highest Honor

by Ryan Bomberger | Washington, DC | | 3/28/14 11:26 AM


Someone just received a nice shiny award from the nation’s largest abortion chain. It’s not every day that one can simultaneously celebrate racism and heap accolades on an organization (the NAACP) founded to eradicate it.

"CHOICE KILL$" by TooManyAborted.comPlanned Parenthood commemorates never severing from its racist and elitist past by centering a gala on the eugenist founder of the billion-dollar abortion empire—Margaret Sanger. And lest anyone think her original 1939 Negro Project slipped into oblivion, Planned Parenthood reminds us they’ve never stopped using prominent black figures to push their agenda of population control. Last night, Big Abortion had a big night honoring the NAACP, Nancy Pelosi, BET’s “Being Mary Jane”, and ABC Family’s “The Fosters”.

While the NAACP is currently enmeshed in a lawsuit with The Radiance Foundation (and organization that my wife and I founded) flat-out denying that they’ve taken a position on abortion, their organization’s actions prove how adamantly pro-abortion they are. NAACP chapter presidents are merely following the former NAACP president Benjamin Jealous’ lead.

Just months before our federal court case with the NAACP in December 2013, Jealous was the keynote speaker at a $1000-a-Margaret-Sanger-Circle-Ticket political rally hosted by Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates in Atlanta, Georgia. So, it’s no surprise that the Reverend Doctor William Barber II, NAACP North Carolina President and National NAACP Board member, engaged in the same direct partnership with an organization birthed in eugenic racism.

Never mind more black babies are aborted in the city where Planned Parenthood is headquartered; these so-called “civil rights” leaders show nothing but love for the baby-killing machine.

naacp6Reverend Barber, responsible for launching the radically liberal “Moral Monday” protests at the NC state capital, hosted and featured their partner Planned Parenthood of Central NC and Planned Parenthood Action Fund of NC (as if they need a “political arm”) at rallies demanding no restrictions on abortion. So last night, Barber received the “Care. No Matter What.” Award from Planned Parenthood. Scare, no matter what. That’s Barber’s tactic.

Bizarrely, in one public speech (start at 3:25) he details a strange historical timeline of egregious civil rights violations suggesting that the oppressors were Republicans, never once mentioning the known source of the violence, lynching and dehumanization—the Democrat Party.

The Negro Project 2.0 is in full effect today. Barber is one of many prominent black public figures Planned Parenthood relies on for double-speak, empty religiosity, and celebrity. Gabrielle Union, star of BET’s “Being Mary Jane” has been a vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood for years.

Like most Hollywood liberals, she reads straight from the script provided, which might explain why she made the absurd claim that Planned Parenthood performed 830,000 mammograms. They would actually need a mammogram machine to do that. They don’t. Which is why PPFA hasn’t done a single one, yet they won’t stop their public spokespeople from making Mammosham (h/t LiveAction) claims.

DOWN-THE-DRAIN-socialNevertheless, “Being Mary Jane” is getting a Maggie! How exciting! Union’s character, yet another leading black actress playing a character that has an adulterous affair with a married man (Planned Parenthood black celebrity spokeswoman Kerry Washington plays same adultery game in Scandal). But marriage fidelity isn’t of any interest to the nation’s largest supporter of birth control over self-control.

Margaret Sanger wanted nothing to do with marriage except the financial boondoggle that it provided her (her last husband, Noah Slee, was an oil tycoon whose money enabled her eugenic Birth Control crusade). In fact Sanger called “the marriage bed the most degenerative influence in the social order” (see Sanger’s 1922 book Women And The New Race).

Have you ever noticed that Planned Parenthood never promotes marriage or adoption? Well, that’s not entirely accurate any more. They do promote one form of marriage—gay marriage. Never before has the abortion giant given a Maggie Award to a show about adoption…ever. But you throw a lesbian couple that has foster and adopted children (it’s a scripted drama, not a reality show) on a network that’s a “Different Kind of Family” (ABC Family) and there you have the first Maggie Award pretending to care about foster care and adoption.

Pretending is what Planned Parenthood does best. They have powerful allies in the civil rights movement, in public education, in mainstream media and in Hollywood–the land of make-believe. However the reality is that the Maggie Awards remind us how little we learn from human history. When people accept being showered with praise by an organization that kills for a living, they lose a little bit of their own humanity, one mutilated child at a time.



12-Year-Old Girl’s Speech on Abortion Leaves Her “Pro-Choice” Teacher Speechless

12-Year-Old Girl’s Speech on Abortion Leaves Her “Pro-Choice” Teacher Speechless

by Steven Ertelt | Washington, DC | | 3/28/14 9:44 AM


Lia Mills is a student pro-life activist who surprised her class with a moving speech on abortion that is so good it’s gone viral on the Internet.

liamills“My daughter prepared and delivered this speech for her grade 7 class. Even those who didn’t agree with her loved it,” her mother says in a note accompanying the video on YouTube.

Lia, who is now 17, has since blossomed into an articulate pro-life advocate, penning an article taking on euthanasia that ran at LifeNews last year and was very well-received.

Here is how she describes herself on her Twitter account: “Lover of Jesus. Daughter of the Most High. Human Rights Activist. Public Speaker. Pro-life. Survivor. Revivalist. Nation shaker. World changer.”

Judge for yourself here:



Letter Pope Francis Gave Obama to Read Says Defending Life Central to Human Rights

Letter Pope Francis Gave Obama to Read Says Defending Life Central to Human Rights

by Dave Andrusko | The Vatican | | 3/28/14 9:21 AM


Not to be overly cynical, but if I was President Obama (with every kind of approval index mired in the high 30s and low 40s), I know I would like to bask in the reflected glow of Pope Francis, whose popularity is double that of the beleaguered President.

So far not a lot has come out about the 52-minute meeting Thursday between Pope Francis and President Obama. Mr. Obama expressed his appreciation for the meeting, the first with Pope Francis and the second the President has had with a Pope. (The first was with Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, “a cordial meeting that nevertheless drew attention to the differences between the church and Obama on abortion,” as Fox News noted.)

popefrancisnrlc“I was grateful to have the opportunity to speak with him about the responsibilities that we all share to care for the least of these, the poor, the excluded,” Obama said today. “And I was extremely moved by his insights about the importance of us all having a moral perspective on world problems and not simply thinking in terms of our own narrow self-interests.”

The Vatican put out a brief statement. “Views were exchanged on some current international themes,” the statement read. “[T]here was a discussion on questions of particular relevance for the Church in that country, such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection, as well as the issue of immigration reform.”

Other accounts, such as Doyle McManus for the Los Angeles Times and John Allen for the Boston Globe, both read between the lines and reminded readers that there are serious differences between this Administration and Rome.

Allen, for example reminded us that “Aside from the broad clash between Obama’s support for abortion rights and the Catholic church’s opposition,” the meeting at the Vatican comes two days after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two lawsuits challenging the Obama mandate that compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures , including contraceptives, to which they have moral or religious objections.

“Sharp differences on that score still loom over the administration’s relationship with the church,” Allen reported.

McManus noted that just as Obama gave an interview with a newspaper in Rome prior to the meeting, so, too, did the Vatican media office issue a statement before the Pope and the President met. It noted that the two men were meeting during “a complex phase of the administration’s relations with the Church of the United States, marked, in particular, by controversy on the implementation of health care reform (the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’ commonly known as ‘Obamacare’)…”

Of the stories I read, only McManus noted the significance of Pope’s parting gift to the President: “a bound copy of his 2013 letter to the faithful, ‘The Joy of the Gospel’ — the one that became famous for its critique of trickle-down economics.”

McManus wrote that Obama said, “I actually will probably read this in the Oval Office when I’m deeply frustrated,” and added, “I’m sure it will give me strength and calm me down.”

But “If the president actually does read the pontiff’s letter, he’ll find that though it’s joyful, it isn’t always comforting,” McManus observed. “[T]here’s also a strong reminder that the church still believes that there are ‘objective moral norms which are valid for everyone.’ And there’s a full-throated defense of traditional Catholic teaching on abortion, which Francis complains is too often criticized as ‘ideological, obscurantist and conservative.’”

He then quotes from what Pope Francis wrote in “The Joy of the Gospel”:

“This defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right,” the pope argues. “Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defense of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be.” Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.


Pelosi Says You Are Dumb

 Pelosi says you are dumb

Pro-life Friend —

Brace yourself for what I’m about to tell you.

Last night, Nancy Pelosi accepted Planned Parenthood’s highest honor – the Margaret Sanger Award – at their annual gala.

Now, that’s enough to make most people’s blood boil.

Sanger – the founder of Planned Parenthood – was a racist eugenicist who called African Americans, immigrants and the poor “human weeds,” “reckless breeders,” “spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

But wait until you read this – Politico is reporting that, in accepting the award, Pelosi called pro-lifers “dumb,” “closed-minded,” and “oblivious.”

Pro-life Friend, I don’t know how you feel right now after reading this, but frankly, I think pro-lifers should take these insults as a badge of honor.

Pelosi knows that abortion on-demand is absolutely indefensible, so she’s resorted to elementary school name-calling.

So here’s how I’m asking you to respond:

Fight back by making an immediate donation of $25, $50, or even $75 or more right now to the SBA List, knowing that your donation will be instantly DOUBLED.

Thanks to a generous contributor, every donation received by March 31st at midnight will be doubled up to $50,000 in support of our efforts to enact pain-capable protection laws across the country.

…After all, how are we “oblivious” when we’re presented with compelling evidence that unborn children can feel pain at 20 weeks?

How is it “dumb” that we accept the scientific fact that life begins at conception?

…And how is it “close-minded” that we want to protect women when study after study shows just how much abortion hurts women?

The truth is, I think we got under Nancy Pelosi’s skin yesterday.

You see, pro-lifers across the country participated in a TweetFest social media campaign to educate Nancy Pelosi about Margaret Sanger’s hateful legacy.

She was a well known eugenicist who thought birth control and abortion were the best way to “create a race of thoroughbreds.” Sanger believed in forced sterilization of “the feeble minded,” and said that “the most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

We presented Nancy Pelosi with facts about Margaret Sanger, and instead of attempting to defend the indefensible, she resorted to name calling instead.

That’s a win in my book!

Pro-life Friend, we are under Pelosi’s skin and we cannot let up now: Make the most generous donation you can today knowing that it will be instantly doubled up to $50,000.

One of our donors is so committed to helping us advance our top legislative priority and beating legislators like Nancy Pelosi that they have offered to match all donations from now until Monday, March 31st at midnight. We need to raise $15,000 between now and then.

Pro-life Friend, our opponents know that faith AND reason are on our side. Name-calling is what the other side does as a last resort when they’ve run out of arguments.

Science and medical technology have only further confirmed the truth about the unborn child in the womb and the threat abortion poses to women. We also have God on our side.

The bottom line is this, and Nancy Pelosi knows it: Life is winning!

God bless you.

Marjorie Dannenfelser
President, Susan B. Anthony List


Donations can also be mailed to SBA List, Suite 550, 1707 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20036
Contributions or gifts to Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization, are not tax-deductible for Federal income tax purposes. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. All donations are made to the general treasury of the Susan B. Anthony List, Inc., and are not designated for any particular purpose. Donation will be used in the sole discretion of the Officers and/or Board of Directors in accordance with the mission and purposes of the SBA List.

Priests for Life Lawsuit Against the Unjust HHS Abortion Mandate of ObamaCare

Priests for Life Lawsuit Against the Unjust HHS Abortion Mandate of ObamaCare

March 27, 2014

As you continue your Lenten journey, I know that one of your resolutions is to deepen your prayer life.

It is for that reason I decided to send you an email Robert Muise just sent me.

As you’ll recall, Rob is the Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of the American Freedom Law Center and the lead attorney in our Priests for Life lawsuit against the unjust HHS abortion mandate of ObamaCare. Here’s the email he sent me:

Fr Pavone: Reminder: our petition for review with the Supreme Court is scheduled to go to conference on Friday, March 28th. Pray that the Court accepts it. We will likely know the outcome within a couple of days. Remember, if the Supreme Court denies the petition, it will have no effect on our appeal in the D.C. Circuit, and we can still seek review in the Supreme Court after the circuit court rules (assuming we don’t prevail—if we do prevail, it is likely that the Solicitor General will seek review, in which case, it is highly likely the Supreme Court will grant review). Much to pray for during this Lenten season!

March 28 is tomorrow.

So, I’ve sent you this email to ask you to do exactly as Rob asks:

Please pray RIGHT NOW and continue to pray until you receive an email from me informing you of the Court’s decision.

This past Tuesday – the Feast of the Annunciation and the International Day of the Unborn – I was at the Supreme Court, speaking at a rally for religious freedom. The Court was hearing arguments regarding how the HHS Mandate applies to for-profit businesses.

Our case, on the other hand, would bring the Court to decide how it applies to not-for-profit religious entities, like Priests for Life.

So much is at stake in our nation right now that it is vital all of us PRAY, and that we do so without ceasing.

That being the case, in addition to praying for the Justices on the Supreme Court, PRAY ALSO for the three judges who will decide our appeal to the D.C. Circuit that Rob mentions. This is our appeal of the terrible and unjust ruling Judge Sullivan handed down last December against Priests for Life.

Your prayers are especially needed because the Court unexpectedly changed the makeup of the 3-judge panel that will hear our case.

As Rob put it so well:


Finally, as long as I have your attention, if at all possible …

please make a contribution Priests for Life can use for our Legal Fund.

Your dollars will be used to advance both the cause of life in America, and especially our legal fight to protect your right to speak out against the injustice of abortion without fear of government coercion!

Please do whatever you can to help. The severe winter weather has wreaked enormous damage on donations. Contributions are well behind where they normally are at this time of year.

So I beg you to be as generous as you possibly can.

Both with your PRAYERS and with your FINANCIAL SUPORT. Priests for Life desperately needs them.

Thank you. May God bless you. And know that in heartfelt appreciation for your support, I remember you at every Mass I offer; as do all the priests of Priests for Life.


Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director
Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries

P.S. If you wish to make a contribution to the Priests for Life Legal Fund or in support of all our life-saving work. Thank you again and God bless.

NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448.

We offer various options for you to receive different emails from the different branches of our ministry. See how you can vary your preferences or unsubscribe. Remember, we want to keep you in the loop!

Make a contribution:


Roe v. Wade: Unjust, Unconstitutional, and Undemocratic

Roe v. Wade: Unjust, Unconstitutional, and Undemocratic


By Paul Stark

Justice Harry Blackmun Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis

On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that abortion must be permitted for any reason before fetal viability—and that it must be permitted for “health” reasons, broadly defined in Doe (so as to encompass virtually any reason), all the way until birth. Roe and Doe essentially legalized abortion on demand nationwide.

The New York Times proclaimed the verdict “a historic resolution of a fiercely controversial issue.” But now, 41 years later, abortion is as unresolved and controversial as ever. Three intractable problems will continue to plague the Court and its abortion jurisprudence until the day when, finally, Roe is overturned.

First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is fundamentally harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of biology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. This was established long before 1973, though subsequent scientific and technological advances have greatly improved our knowledge of life before birth. As Dr. Horatio R. Storer explained in a book published in 1866, “Physicians have now arrived at the unanimous opinion that the foetus in utero is alive from the very moment of conception.”

Justice requires that the law protect the equal dignity and basic rights of every member of the human family—irrespective of age, size, stage of development, condition of dependency, and the desires and decisions of others. This principle of human equality, affirmed in the Declaration of Independence and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the moral crux of western civilization.

But the Roe Court ruled, to the contrary, that a particular class of innocent human beings (the unborn) must be excluded from the protection of the law and allowed to be dismembered and killed at the discretion of others. “The right created by the Supreme Court in Roe,” observes University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, “is a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings.”

After Roe, the incidence of abortion rose dramatically, quickly topping one million abortions per year and peaking at 1.6 million in 1990 before gradually declining to 1.2 million. Under the Roe regime, abortion is the leading cause of human death. Over 56 million human beings have now been legally killed in the United States. And abortion has significantly and detrimentally impacted the health and well-being of many women (and men). The moral gravity and scale of this injustice exceed that of any other issue or concern in American society today.

The second problem with Roe is that it is legally, constitutionally mistaken. Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion claimed that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a “right of privacy” that is “broad enough to encompass” a right to abortion. “As a constitutional argument,” notes University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who favors legalized abortion), “Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”

The right alleged in Roe is blatantly contradicted by the history of abortion law in the United States. Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment roughly coincided with enactment of a wave of state laws prohibiting abortion from conception with the primary aim (according to clear and abundant historical evidence) of protecting unborn children. Most of these statutes were already on the books by the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, and many of them remained unchanged until Roe struck them down more than a century later.

“To reach its result,” Justice William Rehnquist thus concluded in his dissenting opinion, “the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

Blackmun’s reasoning was ridiculous, his facts erroneous, his key historical claims demonstrably false. The process behind the decision was appallingly shoddy. Roe and Doe constituted a full-blown exercise in policy-making—the arbitrary (untethered to the Constitution) invention of a new nationwide abortion policy to reflect the personal preferences of a majority of the justices.

Even pro-choice legal experts don’t try to defend Roe on its merits. “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure,” wrote the eminent constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely. “It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

Since 1973 the Court has modified Roe while stubbornly clinging to its “essential holding.” But the Court’s abortion jurisprudence cannot forever withstand the weight of fact and reason.

Third, Roe is undemocratic. It struck down the democratically-decided abortion laws of all 50 states and imposed a nationwide policy of abortion on demand, whether the people like it or not. Because the Court lacked any constitutional warrant for this move, it usurped the rightful authority of the elected branches of government to determine abortion policy.

The radical extent of the Roe regime was not and has never been consistent with public opinion, which favors substantial legal limits on abortion. (Polling questions on Roe are often inaccurate, and ignorance of the extent of the decision is widespread). Roe has disenfranchised millions and millions of Americans, fostering divisive cultural and political battles. These Americans will not rest while Roe and abortion on demand persist. They want to have a say. The Court decided they could have none.

Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal nationwide. It would return the question of abortion policy back to the people and their elected representatives, where it had been for almost 200 years, and where it always belonged.

So these are the intractable problems of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court abused the Constitution to usurp the authority of the people by imposing a gravely unjust policy with breathtakingly disastrous results.

Unjust. Unconstitutional. Undemocratic. Together, these problems will lead, eventually, to Roe’s collapse.

The Obama Administration’s Hostility to Religious Believers Who Disagree With the Mandate

The Obama Administration’s hostility to religious believers who disagree with the mandate


By Dave Andrusko

HobbyLobbymeme2Leading up to and coming out of the oral arguments delivered to the United States Supreme Court yesterday, there’ve been a tremendous number of very thoughtful explanations of what is really going on with the HHS mandate which compels employers to provide health coverage for drugs and procedures to which they have moral or religious objections.

Jonathan S. Tobin, writing at “The Shrinking Mandate and Freedom,” compares the unyielding determination to ram this tremendously controversial mandate down the throat of unwilling participants with the Obama administration’s politically expeditious string of exemptions and delays allowing individuals and businesses to put off the mandate to purchase health plans or face a penalty.

To take just the latest example: it is transparently obvious why the Administration “has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline,” to quote Amy Goldstein of the Washington Post. Extra time, that is for “all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on,” who will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension. (How will anyone know that a person has “begun”? “This method will rely on an honor system,” Goldstein explains. “[T]he government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.”)

Click here to read the February/March issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”

Such behavior is “President Obama’s favorite tactic in trying to soften the blow of his signature health-care law prior to the 2014 midterms,” Tobin writes. “The point of that exercise is to reduce the pain felt by both businesses and consumers in order to tamp down the general outrage about the law that has been growing since its passage.”

So if flexibility/expediency is the name of the game for Obama, why is Hobby Lobby (one of the two companies whose lawsuits were combined and argued before the High Court Tuesday) facing fines of $300 million to $400 million dollars for non-compliance? Why is Obama (to quote Tobin) “willing to go to legal war over” this?

“The government’s arguments are already vague about its justification for this decision,” Tobin write. The arguments about “women’s rights and health-care costs that are put forward by administration cheerleaders” are “red herrings.”

One of the important considerations Tobin raises is to remind his readers (through a quote from Gabriel Malor) that

“It is not a radical departure from the norm for businesses to pick and choose what health coverage they provide. In fact, that was the norm for decades. What was new and harmful and possibly part of a slippery slope to lawlessness was the decision of Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to impose her will on businesses, for the first time demanding that they provide morally objectionable coverage or face crippling penalties.”

Given all the exemptions, it’s hard to argue there “is a compelling government interest in forcing Hobby Lobby to bend to the will of the administration.”

Tobin concludes

“Under these circumstances with widespread exemptions the arguments in favor of the government aren’t merely exposed as constitutionally weak but a demonstration of the administration’s hostility to religious believers who disagree with the mandate. A nation that values religious freedom less than it does Barack Obama’s political calculations is one that is abandoning the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.”