Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies
May, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 26`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St. , P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
11. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca MN 56093 3/31
12. Smart, Leland 07321-040,
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
This is the first issue of Vol. 7, May, ’09 to April, ’10, of Abortion is Murder. I’ve spent the past month online arguing with killers; so, I can’t say the two-month delay since I finished Vol., 6 was due entirely to the fact that I needed a break after posting twenty-five newsletters for that volume. But I just got back from Notre Dame, Jimbo will be happy to learn, and I’m ready to go. Here is the penultimate section of that remarkable first chapter of Eric Rudolph’s new book:
In the two decades between 1840 and 1860 the states moved slowly. The focus at that time was on slavery and secession. But after the Civil War ended, the legislatures returned to abortion and quickly passed a series of tough new laws. They passed with overwhelming majorities. Minnesota’s anti-abortion statue (1873), for example, sailed through the Senate on a 37 to 0 vote; and in the House the vote was 55 to 1.47 Those who voted against these bills did so on libertarian grounds. South Carolina’s bill, for instance, passed in the Senate 17 to 15. The opposition was against the bill solely because it called for the creation of a state board of health to license physicians.48 No one opposed the anti-abortion laws for what we would call “pro-choice” reasons. And there certainly wasn’t a “pro-choice” lobby pressuring the legislators to stay away from women’s bodies.
These laws were not changing precedent; they were closing loopholes in older laws that in some cases dated back to the colonial period. The laws needed to be brought into conformity with the latest science on embryology. And they needed to focus on the new situation created by the growth of prostitution, the penny-press, and pimps and madams such as Restelle and their “French Pills.” Also, many still believed in the concept of quickening, and the laws needed to specifically debunk that myth once and for all.
Because those leading the fight against abortion were physicians, the movement was called the “Doctors Crusade.” First on the agenda was demolishing the quickening doctrine. One of the leading medical authorities of the day, Dr. John Beck, said the quickening doctrine had a “direct tendency to countenance abortion, at least in the early stages of gestation.”49 Doctors realized that conception inaugurated a continuous process of development, which would produce a newborn baby if left uninterrupted. Contradicting his central thesis that the abortion laws were created for economic reasons, Mohr admits that “this scientific reasoning confirmed the regulars’ moral opposition to abortion at any stage of gestation. Regulars believed it immoral, in other words, to make a life and death decision on the basis of a distinction that they could demonstrate had very little relation to life or death.”50
Leading the fight against abortion were some of America’s most prominent physicians. And the language they used was moral, not economic. Dr. Meigs, one of the finest physicians of the day, instructed his interns that if they were approached to perform an abortion they should say “by common law such is an act of felony, and by the law of God murder.”51 Dr. O.C. Turner of Massachusetts blamed the idea of quickening for a lot of the abortions: Surely the child is alive. It cannot be the mere act of tying the cord that produced life. Then when did life begin? With respiration? This is only one added function. . . . The period of quickening varies, and I do not see why a fetus is not quite as much alive just before it moves or just after . . .52
The American Medical Associations (AMA) took over the fight against abortion after the 1850s. Walter Channing, Harvard professor and brother of William Ellery Channing, was prominent in the movement. Hugh L. Lodge was also instrumental in getting better laws on the book. No one, however, was more outspoken than Horatio Storer, a doctor of gynecology and obstetrics. Storer is one of the great unsung heroes in American history. Between 1860 and 1880, during the crucial period, Storer was the driving force behind the Doctors Crusade.
At the AMA’s Louisville, Kentucky Convention in 1859, Storer called for action. He identified three causes for the increase in abortion. First, was the “wide spread ignorance of the quickening as a stage of gestation.” Second, was the fact that “the medical profession itself was careless of fetal life.” And third, was “the grave defect of our laws.”53 The solution, said Storer, was better education of doctors on the stages of gestation, and an organized campaign to tighten the abortion laws. Storer wrote two books that helped the cause tremendously: Why Not? A Book For Every Woman, and Criminal Abortion. His best work, Criminal Abortion remained the most authoritative text on abortion for generations.
Another of Mohr’s assertions is that the churches were reluctant or indifferent to support the Doctor’s Crusade. This is nonsense. Pope Pius IX issued the Church’s definitive position on abortion and infanticide in 1869, which helped the cause significantly: “The murder of an infant before its birth is, in the sight of God and the Church, as great a sin as would be the killing of an infant after birth.”54 The Protestants chimed in soon after. Reverend Richard Beer of the Presbyterian Synod said, “the assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and against Nature.”55 Indeed, Christian morality drove the entire anti-abortion movement.
Mohr is trying to muddy the water here. In one sense he is correct; the Churches didn’t take the lead in the anti-abortion crusade of the nineteenth century. This is because they didn’t have to. Political interest groups run by religious figures like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson were unnecessary in those days. Back then Christian morality infused public debate in such a way that is difficult for us to comprehend, living as we do in an era where Christianity has been driven out of the public square. In those days, politicians, judges, prosecutors, virtually all community leaders, had to espouse a generalized Protestantism. Whether they genuinely believed in God, or were simply pandering to constituents, all public figures were expected to speak as if they were good Christians, who read their Bibles. A politician who couldn’t quote scripture was dead in the water. Political speeches often sounded like sermons (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address). The abolitionist movement, the anti-prostitution movement, the anti-abortion movement, and the prohibitionist movement were all infused with an evangelical spirit. Hymns and prayers were often heard before any speech against slavery, abortion, or the “Devil’s drink.” The churches themselves didn’t have to organize the anti-abortion crusade because the doctors and politicians who did lead the fight all held the same views as their preachers. There were no Jerry Falwells back then because most mainstream politicians held comparable views to Jerry and had no notion of separating those views from public policy. Those who fought against abortion believed they were battling against crime, against a moral evil. Their opponents were apathetic physicians who wanted to keep their profession unregulated.
Whoremasters such as Madame Restelle didn’t have a legitimate voice in the public square in the nineteenth century.
Storer got the ball rolling; many others picked it up and ran with it. While Storer concentrated on pressuring the states to pass better anti-abortion statutes, Anthony Comstock, head of New York’s Society for the Suppression of Vice, succeeded in convincing the federal Congress to pass what became known as the Comstock Act. Murder belonged to the states, but the feds controlled the mails. Comstock’s Act prohibited anyone using the mails to traffic in pornography, contraception, and abortifacients. In an era when the mail was the primary means of communication, the act had a devastating impact on abortifacient advertisers. It brought the considerable resources of the federal government to bear on abortionists. Child murderers like Restelle were forced underground, and had to advertise on private cards and rely on word-of-mouth. (tbc)
Mr. Dunkle, I am writing to ask (if your were not already planning on it) you to include at the end of each chapter of Eric’s book, the footnotes for that chapter. There are already several references I would like to see.
I will definitely finish Eric’s first chapter next issue and I might be able to include the endnotes—if not, the issue after that.
_________________________________________
Also, I am enclosing a response to a comment made by Josh Ryan during his exchange with Neal Horsley. Sincerely, Robert Weiler Jr.
To Josh Ryan, You said, “Jesus went around speaking the truth, not insulting everyone.” Apparently you don’t read your Scriptures:
“Ye hypocrites...” Matt. 15:7
“The Pharisees were offended...” Matt. 15:12
“You hypocrites...” Mark 7:6
“O generation of vipers...” Matt. 3:7
“A wicked and adulterous generation...” Matt. 16:4
“Ye are of your father the devil...” John 8:44
“If I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you...” John 8:55
Jesus pulled no punches. Once, He even used physical force and (*GASP*) a weapon to expel those desecrating his Father’s house. How much more would he approve of force to defend innocent lives (other than his own, which was set apart for sacrifice).
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Luke 22:36
And this is what happens to people like Josh:
HOLLAND — Organizers of Holland's Tulip Time Festival have told Right to Life officials the anti-abortion group can't have a float in this year's parade.
The May 2-9 flower festival marks its 80th year this year in the western Michigan community.
Festival director Tamara Bouman said Tulip Time long has had a policy against issue-oriented parade entries but didn't enforce it.
The Grand Rapids Press said the festival board decided to enforce the rule because it received a nonprofit tax status in December.
Right to Life Holland-area director Carol Brower said her group is "confused and totally shocked" after having a float in the parade for 25 years. Its float has a sign with the words, "Life is a Precious Gift."
___________________________________________________
Hi, John, thanks for your reply. Think about this: if childkilling really constitutes murder, as the Catholic church claims that they believe, and if Sebelius is complicit in those murders (she is), and if the Bible says that "no murderer has eternal life," (it does), then to offer Sebelius communion would be to offer communion to an unrepentant sinner who the Bible says is headed for eternal destruction. How does that make sense?
Whenever the Catholic Church gives communion to an unrepentant accomplice to childkilling, it makes a statement, as clear as anything could, that either the Church doesn't really hold childkilling to be murder, or else that murderers can be communicants in good standing in the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If you think about it too much, your head will explode.) David (Rydholm)
______________________________________
Dear John, I have received the questions passed on by you...pertaining to Jim Kopp's case. As to the first question: Yes, United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), is the illegal child pornography case. The second question was: "Isn't it the case that the question of the defendant's beliefs are deemed admissible by Williams solely because they go [toward] the scienter element of the offense in question?" The answer to this is "no". In Williams, the admissibility of belief as evidence of a crime goes toward a more subjective element than provided by scienter. Id., at ___. This regards an important distinction. Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) explains "scienter" this way: "For example, if a man sells a car with brakes that don't work to his friend, and he doesn't know about the problem, then the man has no scienter. If he sells the car and knew of the problem before he sold, he has scienter." Williams deals with a different genre of intentions than scienter. For example, a man sells a car HE THOUGHT had bad brakes, but IN ACTUAL FACT the brakes were good. Or, for example, a man offers powdered sugar for sale in a manner that engenders the BELIEF that he is selling an illegal drug to drug users. Or, vice versa, a man snorts powdered sugar that he thought was an illegal drug. Normally, the secular law does not have standing to punish the man for selling the car despite his BELIEF that the brakes were bad, because IN ACTUAL FACT the brakes were not bad. Instead, punishment of this sort is generally reserved to religious laws. Similarly, the law does not punish people for selling powdered sugar, even if it is advertised as an illegal drug. Likewise, the law does not punish people for consuming sugar, regardless of what they think it is. But when it comes to offenses against the child, the Williams Court made an exception to this general rule. Under the Williams exception, BELIEF is evidentiary, even if no child was offended, regardless of whether "a reasonable person would think the same"; instead, the Williams Court ruled that it suffices that the nature of the act in question is able to "engender that belief", namely, the belief that a child is being victimized, "whether or not a reasonable person would think the same." Ibid. This is not the first case in history where the U.S. Supreme Court has made an exception to a general rule when it comes to children. For example, in Belloti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), the Court, citing the peculiar vulnerability of children, Id., at 622-623, made an exception to precedent, by allowing States to impose a chaperon requirement for minors seeking abortions. The Williams exception to the barring of belief-oriented evidence is important to Kopp's case. In view of the peculiar vulnerability of children, Kopp claims he acted to defend them from practices that engender the belief that children are being victimized. Because the specific issue of the belief is the victimization of children, under Williams, even if the Government contends that a reasonable person would not think the same, Kopp's belief-oriented defense would still be admissible. Under Williams, Kopp has the right to defend his motivations "as an objective matter". United States v. Williams, supra, at ___. For example, he may call for a coroner's statement to examine the victims of abortion practices, so as to determine the official cause of their deaths as homicide. In other words, Kopp has the right to draw on objective matter that plainly conveys the belief that was engendered in him by abortion practices, namely, that such practices victimize children. Ibid. Here is the paragraph from United States v. Williams from which the above quotes are taken: Fourth, the other key phrase, "in a manner . . . that is intended to cause another to believe," contains only a subjective element: The defendant must "intend" that the listener believe the material to be child pornography, and must select a manner of "advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" the material that he thinks will engender that belief--whether or not a reasonable person would think the same. (Of course in the ordinary case the proof of the defendant's intent will be the fact that, as an objective matter, the manner of "advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" plainly sought to convey that the material was child pornography.) Ibid. Under Williams, the Federal Courts cannot disallow Kopp's belief-based defense on the basis of Government claims that no children were actually harmed. For, under Williams, no child need actually be harmed in order for beliefs to be counted as evidentiary. Instead, under the Williams test, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. Ibid. In view of actions that engender the belief that children are being harmed, Kopp thought he was acting to protect the children in view of their peculiar vulnerability. Under Williams, Kopp not only has the right to a belief-based defense, but he also has the right to present evidence as an objective matter in support of that belief. For example, Kopp has the right to call for an official coroner's statement in support his belief that children have been made victims of homicide based on abortion practices. Williams provides an exception to the inadmissibility of beliefs as evidence. Under the Williams test, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. This criterion safeguards the interests of society in protecting children in view of their peculiar vulnerability. Because his case satisfies the criterion of the Williams test for belief-oriented evidence, if the Courts do not allow Kopp to present a belief-based defense, it would mean allowing only belief-based prosecutions in cases where the test is met. However, for the judiciary to treat a defendant’s beliefs as having only an incriminating significance would violate a vast sum of protections, including the freedoms of religion and expression. Indeed, we would have to ridicule a secular judiciary, as something of a religious cult, if it were to consider a defendant's beliefs only when they might count against him! The principle of equity precludes an imbalance disfavoring a defendant. In other words, if belief-oriented evidence can be allowed when it works against a defendant, it must also be allowed when it works in his favor. For this reason, it is clear that Kopp's right to a fair trial has been violated in Federal Court. If beliefs can count as legal evidence, then they must be no less evidentiary when they are exculpatory than when they are incriminating. We cannot tolerate a secular judiciary that allows belief-based prosecutions but not belief-based defenses! As to what appears to be a third question asked, the answer is that Kopp's asserted belief that he was only trying to disable, rather than to kill, is independent from his belief that children were being victimized. It is the latter belief that Williams gives evidentiary significance to. However, once this belief is established as an objective matter, then the suggestion that Kopp acted to disable, rather than to kill, would support an added defense that he sought to protect children while at the same time minimizing losses. As a side note, I find in Wikipedia that U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara told Kopp at the end of his Federal trial, “You served as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner [in killing Barnett Slepian]. You decided that you know better than any law." It is important to emphasize that this statement is prejudicial, because it implies Kopp shot Slepian as retribution for past actions. But Kopp alleges he shot Slepian not as a punishment for his past, but rather to preempt him from victimizing children. In other words, if I understand it correctly, Kopp alleges he shot Slepian not to avenge the deaths of children, but rather to safeguard children from homicide. Arcara, by such a statement, meant to cast Kopp in the light of an avenger, rather than in the light of a protector of children.To review:1. Williams established an exception to the barring of belief-oriented evidence.2. Under the test provided by Williams, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. Admission of belief-oriented evidence satisfying this criterion safeguards the interests of society in protecting children in view of their peculiar vulnerability.3. Given their peculiar vulnerability, children require society’s exceptional protection not only from pornographers (United States v. Williams) and physicians (Belloti v. Baird), but even from the Government, which may lapse into tyranny and despotism at children’s expense.4. Kopp sought to protect children in view of their peculiar vulnerability to physician and governmental abuse. In doing so, he acted on the basis of a belief engendered in him by objective matter suggesting the victimization of a child. Even if a reasonable person would not think the same, Kopp’s belief satisfies the Williams test for admissible belief-oriented evidence.5. One need not be overly specific in comparing Kopp’s case to that of Williams. Belief-oriented evidence, supported by objective matter, forms the crux of the prosecutor’s case in Williams. Under the same standard set forth in Williams, belief-oriented evidence must be no less admissible when it forms the crux of the defendant’s case.6. Kopp’s right to a fair trial was violated because belief-oriented evidence admissible under the Williams test was barred in Federal Court. In other words, if Williams allows the prosecution to put on belief evidence under the child victimization test, then it should also allow the defense to put on belief evidence under the same test.I hope this helps. Sincerely, Cal.
_____________________________________
A Meditation on the Rescue of Capt. Phillips
A great story. Most of us rejoice that our SEALs - the snipers- shot each of three African men in the head - dead. We might reckon as well that they went to hell.
I do rejoice - not at the prospect that souls might be lost, but that my countryman, Capt. Phillips, was rescued.
The men were judged to be "pirates" who were threatening the life of a civilian ship captain. And the snipers were judged to be rescuers of an innocent man.
I cannot help but think of some friends of mine: one in prison and the other executed by the state of Florida. Why do so many pro-lifers refuse to commend Jim Kopp and Paul Hill for rescuing the innocent unborn?
Has our government mislabeled children in the womb as "pirates" or "terrorists"? Do we really believe in their personhood?
We will get no where in this God-forsaking nation until we face, believe and declare the truth. –Mbray
_____________________________________
Dear friends of Shelley Shannon, We received a call from her at 7 AM this morning---she has arrived in MN and is very happy about it. Actually she arrived about 4 AM yesterday (Tues.), but didn't get processed in till late last evening. She said she got a really good night's sleep -- on a nice thick mattress!! The kind of mattress people had to pay an extra $50 for at Dublin, but everybody here gets one. So far she says things are very nice there, and they are very strict about the rules.
She is currently in a room of 10 people, but next week will be put into a unit.
Her mailing address is: Rachelle Shannon #59755-065, FCI Waseca Unit A, PO Box 1731
Waseca MN 56093
She really enjoyed the trip -- partly by bus and partly by plane. I'm sure we're all glad to know she's arrived safe and sound and things are looking good for her right now. Said she is signing up for a class in horticulture.
Blessings to everyone, Dave & Dorothy Leach
I just received a long, wonderful letter from Shelley, which I will post nest issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The battle to protect young folks is really a prolifer struggle, not a fight between prolifers and killers (“pro-choice” people). I, for example, could have ended legal abortion myself if I had had the courage to follow Paul Hill’s lead, but, obviously, I lack that courage.
However, nowhere is this battle better followed than in the clashes between Neal Horsley and other prolifers. I posted at least one of those lengthy clashes in Abortion is Murder. The latest, between Neal and a pastor, Marshall “Rusty” Entrekiin, is too long to post here, but I recommend you email Neal and ask him to send it to you, nealhorsley@bellsouth.net. Neal has always been one of my heroes. No one says better than Neal the harsh things that have to be said during our time of horror. This, of course, hurts other prolifers, and they react angrily.
Pastor Rusty is a literate opponent for Neal but I do detect personal anger seeping into his argument, whereas with Neal the anger is never personal.
____________________________________
May, 2009, Vol. 7, No. 1
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – cell--610-809-3388, machine -- 610-396-0332
Email – johndunk@ptd.net
Web – skyp1.blogspot.com
Circulation – 26`
John Dunkle, Editor
Abortion is Murder, a weak, pathetic response to baby murder, is sent out at least once a month. If the gestapo hasn’t jailed you for defending the innocent realistically, you either have to tell me you want it or go the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for POC’s, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should use every legitimate means, including force, in our attempt to protect those being tortured to death, I want to hear from people who’ve been forceful. I’d also like to hear from those who disagree with me.
Prisoners of Christ:
1. Evans, Paul Ross 83230-180, USP McCreary, P.O. Box 3000, Pine Knot, KY 42635
2. Gibbons, Linda - Vanier WDC, 655 Martin St. , P.O. Box 1040, Milton, ON, Canada L9T 5E6
3. Griffin, Michael 310249, Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Crestview FL 32539-6708 9/11
4. Howard, Peter Andrew 57760-097, FCI, Box 900, Safford, AZ 85546
5. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
6. Knight, Peter CRN 158589, Port Philip Prison, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
7. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, Waymart, PA 18472
8. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 50947
10. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
11. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca MN 56093 3/31
12. Smart, Leland 07321-040,
13. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
14. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
15. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918
The Lord has asked people to make sacrifices related to opposing abortion which all but a handful have had too weak a heart to make. And they’ve looked for any pretense they could conjure up to claim that the sacrifice wasn’t required. They even deluded themselves, as people often do, into “believing” the pretense was real . . . When they get what they’ll get, they’ll fully deserve it. Peter Knight
This is the first issue of Vol. 7, May, ’09 to April, ’10, of Abortion is Murder. I’ve spent the past month online arguing with killers; so, I can’t say the two-month delay since I finished Vol., 6 was due entirely to the fact that I needed a break after posting twenty-five newsletters for that volume. But I just got back from Notre Dame, Jimbo will be happy to learn, and I’m ready to go. Here is the penultimate section of that remarkable first chapter of Eric Rudolph’s new book:
In the two decades between 1840 and 1860 the states moved slowly. The focus at that time was on slavery and secession. But after the Civil War ended, the legislatures returned to abortion and quickly passed a series of tough new laws. They passed with overwhelming majorities. Minnesota’s anti-abortion statue (1873), for example, sailed through the Senate on a 37 to 0 vote; and in the House the vote was 55 to 1.47 Those who voted against these bills did so on libertarian grounds. South Carolina’s bill, for instance, passed in the Senate 17 to 15. The opposition was against the bill solely because it called for the creation of a state board of health to license physicians.48 No one opposed the anti-abortion laws for what we would call “pro-choice” reasons. And there certainly wasn’t a “pro-choice” lobby pressuring the legislators to stay away from women’s bodies.
These laws were not changing precedent; they were closing loopholes in older laws that in some cases dated back to the colonial period. The laws needed to be brought into conformity with the latest science on embryology. And they needed to focus on the new situation created by the growth of prostitution, the penny-press, and pimps and madams such as Restelle and their “French Pills.” Also, many still believed in the concept of quickening, and the laws needed to specifically debunk that myth once and for all.
Because those leading the fight against abortion were physicians, the movement was called the “Doctors Crusade.” First on the agenda was demolishing the quickening doctrine. One of the leading medical authorities of the day, Dr. John Beck, said the quickening doctrine had a “direct tendency to countenance abortion, at least in the early stages of gestation.”49 Doctors realized that conception inaugurated a continuous process of development, which would produce a newborn baby if left uninterrupted. Contradicting his central thesis that the abortion laws were created for economic reasons, Mohr admits that “this scientific reasoning confirmed the regulars’ moral opposition to abortion at any stage of gestation. Regulars believed it immoral, in other words, to make a life and death decision on the basis of a distinction that they could demonstrate had very little relation to life or death.”50
Leading the fight against abortion were some of America’s most prominent physicians. And the language they used was moral, not economic. Dr. Meigs, one of the finest physicians of the day, instructed his interns that if they were approached to perform an abortion they should say “by common law such is an act of felony, and by the law of God murder.”51 Dr. O.C. Turner of Massachusetts blamed the idea of quickening for a lot of the abortions: Surely the child is alive. It cannot be the mere act of tying the cord that produced life. Then when did life begin? With respiration? This is only one added function. . . . The period of quickening varies, and I do not see why a fetus is not quite as much alive just before it moves or just after . . .52
The American Medical Associations (AMA) took over the fight against abortion after the 1850s. Walter Channing, Harvard professor and brother of William Ellery Channing, was prominent in the movement. Hugh L. Lodge was also instrumental in getting better laws on the book. No one, however, was more outspoken than Horatio Storer, a doctor of gynecology and obstetrics. Storer is one of the great unsung heroes in American history. Between 1860 and 1880, during the crucial period, Storer was the driving force behind the Doctors Crusade.
At the AMA’s Louisville, Kentucky Convention in 1859, Storer called for action. He identified three causes for the increase in abortion. First, was the “wide spread ignorance of the quickening as a stage of gestation.” Second, was the fact that “the medical profession itself was careless of fetal life.” And third, was “the grave defect of our laws.”53 The solution, said Storer, was better education of doctors on the stages of gestation, and an organized campaign to tighten the abortion laws. Storer wrote two books that helped the cause tremendously: Why Not? A Book For Every Woman, and Criminal Abortion. His best work, Criminal Abortion remained the most authoritative text on abortion for generations.
Another of Mohr’s assertions is that the churches were reluctant or indifferent to support the Doctor’s Crusade. This is nonsense. Pope Pius IX issued the Church’s definitive position on abortion and infanticide in 1869, which helped the cause significantly: “The murder of an infant before its birth is, in the sight of God and the Church, as great a sin as would be the killing of an infant after birth.”54 The Protestants chimed in soon after. Reverend Richard Beer of the Presbyterian Synod said, “the assembly regards the destruction by parents of their own offspring, before birth, with abhorrence, as a crime against God and against Nature.”55 Indeed, Christian morality drove the entire anti-abortion movement.
Mohr is trying to muddy the water here. In one sense he is correct; the Churches didn’t take the lead in the anti-abortion crusade of the nineteenth century. This is because they didn’t have to. Political interest groups run by religious figures like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson were unnecessary in those days. Back then Christian morality infused public debate in such a way that is difficult for us to comprehend, living as we do in an era where Christianity has been driven out of the public square. In those days, politicians, judges, prosecutors, virtually all community leaders, had to espouse a generalized Protestantism. Whether they genuinely believed in God, or were simply pandering to constituents, all public figures were expected to speak as if they were good Christians, who read their Bibles. A politician who couldn’t quote scripture was dead in the water. Political speeches often sounded like sermons (Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address). The abolitionist movement, the anti-prostitution movement, the anti-abortion movement, and the prohibitionist movement were all infused with an evangelical spirit. Hymns and prayers were often heard before any speech against slavery, abortion, or the “Devil’s drink.” The churches themselves didn’t have to organize the anti-abortion crusade because the doctors and politicians who did lead the fight all held the same views as their preachers. There were no Jerry Falwells back then because most mainstream politicians held comparable views to Jerry and had no notion of separating those views from public policy. Those who fought against abortion believed they were battling against crime, against a moral evil. Their opponents were apathetic physicians who wanted to keep their profession unregulated.
Whoremasters such as Madame Restelle didn’t have a legitimate voice in the public square in the nineteenth century.
Storer got the ball rolling; many others picked it up and ran with it. While Storer concentrated on pressuring the states to pass better anti-abortion statutes, Anthony Comstock, head of New York’s Society for the Suppression of Vice, succeeded in convincing the federal Congress to pass what became known as the Comstock Act. Murder belonged to the states, but the feds controlled the mails. Comstock’s Act prohibited anyone using the mails to traffic in pornography, contraception, and abortifacients. In an era when the mail was the primary means of communication, the act had a devastating impact on abortifacient advertisers. It brought the considerable resources of the federal government to bear on abortionists. Child murderers like Restelle were forced underground, and had to advertise on private cards and rely on word-of-mouth. (tbc)
Mr. Dunkle, I am writing to ask (if your were not already planning on it) you to include at the end of each chapter of Eric’s book, the footnotes for that chapter. There are already several references I would like to see.
I will definitely finish Eric’s first chapter next issue and I might be able to include the endnotes—if not, the issue after that.
_________________________________________
Also, I am enclosing a response to a comment made by Josh Ryan during his exchange with Neal Horsley. Sincerely, Robert Weiler Jr.
To Josh Ryan, You said, “Jesus went around speaking the truth, not insulting everyone.” Apparently you don’t read your Scriptures:
“Ye hypocrites...” Matt. 15:7
“The Pharisees were offended...” Matt. 15:12
“You hypocrites...” Mark 7:6
“O generation of vipers...” Matt. 3:7
“A wicked and adulterous generation...” Matt. 16:4
“Ye are of your father the devil...” John 8:44
“If I should say, I know Him not, I shall be a liar like unto you...” John 8:55
Jesus pulled no punches. Once, He even used physical force and (*GASP*) a weapon to expel those desecrating his Father’s house. How much more would he approve of force to defend innocent lives (other than his own, which was set apart for sacrifice).
“He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Luke 22:36
And this is what happens to people like Josh:
HOLLAND — Organizers of Holland's Tulip Time Festival have told Right to Life officials the anti-abortion group can't have a float in this year's parade.
The May 2-9 flower festival marks its 80th year this year in the western Michigan community.
Festival director Tamara Bouman said Tulip Time long has had a policy against issue-oriented parade entries but didn't enforce it.
The Grand Rapids Press said the festival board decided to enforce the rule because it received a nonprofit tax status in December.
Right to Life Holland-area director Carol Brower said her group is "confused and totally shocked" after having a float in the parade for 25 years. Its float has a sign with the words, "Life is a Precious Gift."
___________________________________________________
Hi, John, thanks for your reply. Think about this: if childkilling really constitutes murder, as the Catholic church claims that they believe, and if Sebelius is complicit in those murders (she is), and if the Bible says that "no murderer has eternal life," (it does), then to offer Sebelius communion would be to offer communion to an unrepentant sinner who the Bible says is headed for eternal destruction. How does that make sense?
Whenever the Catholic Church gives communion to an unrepentant accomplice to childkilling, it makes a statement, as clear as anything could, that either the Church doesn't really hold childkilling to be murder, or else that murderers can be communicants in good standing in the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. (If you think about it too much, your head will explode.) David (Rydholm)
______________________________________
Dear John, I have received the questions passed on by you...pertaining to Jim Kopp's case. As to the first question: Yes, United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), is the illegal child pornography case. The second question was: "Isn't it the case that the question of the defendant's beliefs are deemed admissible by Williams solely because they go [toward] the scienter element of the offense in question?" The answer to this is "no". In Williams, the admissibility of belief as evidence of a crime goes toward a more subjective element than provided by scienter. Id., at ___. This regards an important distinction. Wikipedia (the online encyclopedia) explains "scienter" this way: "For example, if a man sells a car with brakes that don't work to his friend, and he doesn't know about the problem, then the man has no scienter. If he sells the car and knew of the problem before he sold, he has scienter." Williams deals with a different genre of intentions than scienter. For example, a man sells a car HE THOUGHT had bad brakes, but IN ACTUAL FACT the brakes were good. Or, for example, a man offers powdered sugar for sale in a manner that engenders the BELIEF that he is selling an illegal drug to drug users. Or, vice versa, a man snorts powdered sugar that he thought was an illegal drug. Normally, the secular law does not have standing to punish the man for selling the car despite his BELIEF that the brakes were bad, because IN ACTUAL FACT the brakes were not bad. Instead, punishment of this sort is generally reserved to religious laws. Similarly, the law does not punish people for selling powdered sugar, even if it is advertised as an illegal drug. Likewise, the law does not punish people for consuming sugar, regardless of what they think it is. But when it comes to offenses against the child, the Williams Court made an exception to this general rule. Under the Williams exception, BELIEF is evidentiary, even if no child was offended, regardless of whether "a reasonable person would think the same"; instead, the Williams Court ruled that it suffices that the nature of the act in question is able to "engender that belief", namely, the belief that a child is being victimized, "whether or not a reasonable person would think the same." Ibid. This is not the first case in history where the U.S. Supreme Court has made an exception to a general rule when it comes to children. For example, in Belloti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), the Court, citing the peculiar vulnerability of children, Id., at 622-623, made an exception to precedent, by allowing States to impose a chaperon requirement for minors seeking abortions. The Williams exception to the barring of belief-oriented evidence is important to Kopp's case. In view of the peculiar vulnerability of children, Kopp claims he acted to defend them from practices that engender the belief that children are being victimized. Because the specific issue of the belief is the victimization of children, under Williams, even if the Government contends that a reasonable person would not think the same, Kopp's belief-oriented defense would still be admissible. Under Williams, Kopp has the right to defend his motivations "as an objective matter". United States v. Williams, supra, at ___. For example, he may call for a coroner's statement to examine the victims of abortion practices, so as to determine the official cause of their deaths as homicide. In other words, Kopp has the right to draw on objective matter that plainly conveys the belief that was engendered in him by abortion practices, namely, that such practices victimize children. Ibid. Here is the paragraph from United States v. Williams from which the above quotes are taken: Fourth, the other key phrase, "in a manner . . . that is intended to cause another to believe," contains only a subjective element: The defendant must "intend" that the listener believe the material to be child pornography, and must select a manner of "advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" the material that he thinks will engender that belief--whether or not a reasonable person would think the same. (Of course in the ordinary case the proof of the defendant's intent will be the fact that, as an objective matter, the manner of "advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting" plainly sought to convey that the material was child pornography.) Ibid. Under Williams, the Federal Courts cannot disallow Kopp's belief-based defense on the basis of Government claims that no children were actually harmed. For, under Williams, no child need actually be harmed in order for beliefs to be counted as evidentiary. Instead, under the Williams test, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. Ibid. In view of actions that engender the belief that children are being harmed, Kopp thought he was acting to protect the children in view of their peculiar vulnerability. Under Williams, Kopp not only has the right to a belief-based defense, but he also has the right to present evidence as an objective matter in support of that belief. For example, Kopp has the right to call for an official coroner's statement in support his belief that children have been made victims of homicide based on abortion practices. Williams provides an exception to the inadmissibility of beliefs as evidence. Under the Williams test, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. This criterion safeguards the interests of society in protecting children in view of their peculiar vulnerability. Because his case satisfies the criterion of the Williams test for belief-oriented evidence, if the Courts do not allow Kopp to present a belief-based defense, it would mean allowing only belief-based prosecutions in cases where the test is met. However, for the judiciary to treat a defendant’s beliefs as having only an incriminating significance would violate a vast sum of protections, including the freedoms of religion and expression. Indeed, we would have to ridicule a secular judiciary, as something of a religious cult, if it were to consider a defendant's beliefs only when they might count against him! The principle of equity precludes an imbalance disfavoring a defendant. In other words, if belief-oriented evidence can be allowed when it works against a defendant, it must also be allowed when it works in his favor. For this reason, it is clear that Kopp's right to a fair trial has been violated in Federal Court. If beliefs can count as legal evidence, then they must be no less evidentiary when they are exculpatory than when they are incriminating. We cannot tolerate a secular judiciary that allows belief-based prosecutions but not belief-based defenses! As to what appears to be a third question asked, the answer is that Kopp's asserted belief that he was only trying to disable, rather than to kill, is independent from his belief that children were being victimized. It is the latter belief that Williams gives evidentiary significance to. However, once this belief is established as an objective matter, then the suggestion that Kopp acted to disable, rather than to kill, would support an added defense that he sought to protect children while at the same time minimizing losses. As a side note, I find in Wikipedia that U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara told Kopp at the end of his Federal trial, “You served as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner [in killing Barnett Slepian]. You decided that you know better than any law." It is important to emphasize that this statement is prejudicial, because it implies Kopp shot Slepian as retribution for past actions. But Kopp alleges he shot Slepian not as a punishment for his past, but rather to preempt him from victimizing children. In other words, if I understand it correctly, Kopp alleges he shot Slepian not to avenge the deaths of children, but rather to safeguard children from homicide. Arcara, by such a statement, meant to cast Kopp in the light of an avenger, rather than in the light of a protector of children.To review:1. Williams established an exception to the barring of belief-oriented evidence.2. Under the test provided by Williams, belief becomes evidentiary whenever it is engendered by "objective matter" suggesting the victimization of a child. Admission of belief-oriented evidence satisfying this criterion safeguards the interests of society in protecting children in view of their peculiar vulnerability.3. Given their peculiar vulnerability, children require society’s exceptional protection not only from pornographers (United States v. Williams) and physicians (Belloti v. Baird), but even from the Government, which may lapse into tyranny and despotism at children’s expense.4. Kopp sought to protect children in view of their peculiar vulnerability to physician and governmental abuse. In doing so, he acted on the basis of a belief engendered in him by objective matter suggesting the victimization of a child. Even if a reasonable person would not think the same, Kopp’s belief satisfies the Williams test for admissible belief-oriented evidence.5. One need not be overly specific in comparing Kopp’s case to that of Williams. Belief-oriented evidence, supported by objective matter, forms the crux of the prosecutor’s case in Williams. Under the same standard set forth in Williams, belief-oriented evidence must be no less admissible when it forms the crux of the defendant’s case.6. Kopp’s right to a fair trial was violated because belief-oriented evidence admissible under the Williams test was barred in Federal Court. In other words, if Williams allows the prosecution to put on belief evidence under the child victimization test, then it should also allow the defense to put on belief evidence under the same test.I hope this helps. Sincerely, Cal.
_____________________________________
A Meditation on the Rescue of Capt. Phillips
A great story. Most of us rejoice that our SEALs - the snipers- shot each of three African men in the head - dead. We might reckon as well that they went to hell.
I do rejoice - not at the prospect that souls might be lost, but that my countryman, Capt. Phillips, was rescued.
The men were judged to be "pirates" who were threatening the life of a civilian ship captain. And the snipers were judged to be rescuers of an innocent man.
I cannot help but think of some friends of mine: one in prison and the other executed by the state of Florida. Why do so many pro-lifers refuse to commend Jim Kopp and Paul Hill for rescuing the innocent unborn?
Has our government mislabeled children in the womb as "pirates" or "terrorists"? Do we really believe in their personhood?
We will get no where in this God-forsaking nation until we face, believe and declare the truth. –Mbray
_____________________________________
Dear friends of Shelley Shannon, We received a call from her at 7 AM this morning---she has arrived in MN and is very happy about it. Actually she arrived about 4 AM yesterday (Tues.), but didn't get processed in till late last evening. She said she got a really good night's sleep -- on a nice thick mattress!! The kind of mattress people had to pay an extra $50 for at Dublin, but everybody here gets one. So far she says things are very nice there, and they are very strict about the rules.
She is currently in a room of 10 people, but next week will be put into a unit.
Her mailing address is: Rachelle Shannon #59755-065, FCI Waseca Unit A, PO Box 1731
Waseca MN 56093
She really enjoyed the trip -- partly by bus and partly by plane. I'm sure we're all glad to know she's arrived safe and sound and things are looking good for her right now. Said she is signing up for a class in horticulture.
Blessings to everyone, Dave & Dorothy Leach
I just received a long, wonderful letter from Shelley, which I will post nest issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The battle to protect young folks is really a prolifer struggle, not a fight between prolifers and killers (“pro-choice” people). I, for example, could have ended legal abortion myself if I had had the courage to follow Paul Hill’s lead, but, obviously, I lack that courage.
However, nowhere is this battle better followed than in the clashes between Neal Horsley and other prolifers. I posted at least one of those lengthy clashes in Abortion is Murder. The latest, between Neal and a pastor, Marshall “Rusty” Entrekiin, is too long to post here, but I recommend you email Neal and ask him to send it to you, nealhorsley@bellsouth.net. Neal has always been one of my heroes. No one says better than Neal the harsh things that have to be said during our time of horror. This, of course, hurts other prolifers, and they react angrily.
Pastor Rusty is a literate opponent for Neal but I do detect personal anger seeping into his argument, whereas with Neal the anger is never personal.
____________________________________
Kansas abortion doctor asks feds to find vandals
A Kansas abortion provider has asked the FBI to investigate vandalism at his Wichita clinic.
The clinic is operated by Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors nationwide who performs late-term abortions.
Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Friday that the Women's Health Care Services clinic was damaged May 1.
Monnat said vandals cut the wires to outdoor lights and surveillance cameras at the clinic. With rain in the weather forecast, they also sliced through about 200 feet of the roof and plugged up the downspouts. Monnat said rain poured into the clinic and caused thousands of dollars of damage.
A Kansas abortion provider has asked the FBI to investigate vandalism at his Wichita clinic.
The clinic is operated by Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors nationwide who performs late-term abortions.
Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, said Friday that the Women's Health Care Services clinic was damaged May 1.
Monnat said vandals cut the wires to outdoor lights and surveillance cameras at the clinic. With rain in the weather forecast, they also sliced through about 200 feet of the roof and plugged up the downspouts. Monnat said rain poured into the clinic and caused thousands of dollars of damage.
---------------------------------------
Dear John, All of the Members of the Court who presided over Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), have been replaced. Each of the present Members is a replacement for a Member of the Roe Court, except for Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (who in turn replaced Roe Justice Potter Stewart). The first replacement for any of the Roe Justices was Justice John Paul Stevens, who at 89 is presently the oldest Member of the Court.
Nearing 20 years after Roe, in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Justice Stevens finally set the record straight for the Court. He said that from Roe’s holding that “an abortion is not the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection ... there was no dissent; indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition.” Id., at 913 (citations and internal quotes removed).
Roe was, and remains, the unanimous decision of a completely undivided Court insofar as the “fundamental proposition” is concerned. The fundamental proposition concerns the issue of the children’s rights. The Court has unanimously accepted Roe’s holding that the children have no rights we are “bound” to respect, because they are “so far inferior”. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), at 407.
In other words, in the abortion era the Court has unanimously accepted the slavery era proposition of the Dred Scott decision, namely, that the equal protection of the law does not apply to the children. Consequently, the Court in Roe held that an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to extend the equal protection of the law to those considered by the Dred Scott ruling to be “so far inferior” that they have “no rights” we are “bound” to respect. Ibid.
In other words, Roe remains the unanimous decision of a completely undivided Court as far as the children’s rights are concerned. That there has been a total absence of debate in the Court on the children’s rights issue is evidenced by the fact that Justice Stevens, the longest serving Member of the Court since Roe, recalls in Casey that “no Member of the Court” has ever so much as “questioned” let alone provided any “dissent” when it comes to this “fundamental” proposition. Ibid. For, there can be no true debate without someone at least questioning the matter.
Instead, the only division in the Court has been over the secondary issue of a State’s rights. In Roe, a Court unanimously composed of pro-abatement Justices ruled in favor of depriving the children of the equal protection of the law to abate women’s pregnancies with legal abortion. But when it came to the secondary issue of a State’s rights, the Court was bitterly divided.
The Court’s minority wanted to let each State establish its own abortion policy individually, like the Court had let States do with slavery under the Dred Scott ruling. These are the so called Roe dissenters. As such, they dissented not in favor of the children’s rights but rather in favor of a State’s right to decide the fate of the children, without the equal protection of the law, just like the States were once allowed to set their own slavery policies. But the majority decided in favor of a national abortion policy, which we now know as Roe v. Wade.
Since then, the Court has continued to debate a State’s rights, but never the children’s rights. Sincerely, Cal
___________________________________________.
A Cottage Grove man who drove his truck into the front of a Planned Parenthood clinic on the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion was sentenced to the 111 days he has already served.
If Matthew Lee Derosia, 33, follows rules of his probation for the next five years, his conviction will be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, Ramsey County District Judge John Van de North ruled Tuesday.
Derosia pleaded guilty to one count of criminal damage to property in the Jan. 22 incident at the clinic at 1965 Ford Parkway in St. Paul's Highland Park neighborhood. When police arrived, he was standing by the truck, holding a crucifix and shouting Bible verses, according to the criminal complaint in the case.
No one was injured in the crash.
Derosia was later celebrated in a list of "prisoners of Christ" on an anti-abortion Web site.
______________________________________________
Remember that I wrote this at the end of the last issue?
Nearing 20 years after Roe, in a case called Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), Justice Stevens finally set the record straight for the Court. He said that from Roe’s holding that “an abortion is not the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection ... there was no dissent; indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition.” Id., at 913 (citations and internal quotes removed).
Roe was, and remains, the unanimous decision of a completely undivided Court insofar as the “fundamental proposition” is concerned. The fundamental proposition concerns the issue of the children’s rights. The Court has unanimously accepted Roe’s holding that the children have no rights we are “bound” to respect, because they are “so far inferior”. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), at 407.
In other words, in the abortion era the Court has unanimously accepted the slavery era proposition of the Dred Scott decision, namely, that the equal protection of the law does not apply to the children. Consequently, the Court in Roe held that an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed to extend the equal protection of the law to those considered by the Dred Scott ruling to be “so far inferior” that they have “no rights” we are “bound” to respect. Ibid.
In other words, Roe remains the unanimous decision of a completely undivided Court as far as the children’s rights are concerned. That there has been a total absence of debate in the Court on the children’s rights issue is evidenced by the fact that Justice Stevens, the longest serving Member of the Court since Roe, recalls in Casey that “no Member of the Court” has ever so much as “questioned” let alone provided any “dissent” when it comes to this “fundamental” proposition. Ibid. For, there can be no true debate without someone at least questioning the matter.
Instead, the only division in the Court has been over the secondary issue of a State’s rights. In Roe, a Court unanimously composed of pro-abatement Justices ruled in favor of depriving the children of the equal protection of the law to abate women’s pregnancies with legal abortion. But when it came to the secondary issue of a State’s rights, the Court was bitterly divided.
The Court’s minority wanted to let each State establish its own abortion policy individually, like the Court had let States do with slavery under the Dred Scott ruling. These are the so called Roe dissenters. As such, they dissented not in favor of the children’s rights but rather in favor of a State’s right to decide the fate of the children, without the equal protection of the law, just like the States were once allowed to set their own slavery policies. But the majority decided in favor of a national abortion policy, which we now know as Roe v. Wade.
Since then, the Court has continued to debate a State’s rights, but never the children’s rights. Sincerely, Cal
___________________________________________.
A Cottage Grove man who drove his truck into the front of a Planned Parenthood clinic on the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing abortion was sentenced to the 111 days he has already served.
If Matthew Lee Derosia, 33, follows rules of his probation for the next five years, his conviction will be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, Ramsey County District Judge John Van de North ruled Tuesday.
Derosia pleaded guilty to one count of criminal damage to property in the Jan. 22 incident at the clinic at 1965 Ford Parkway in St. Paul's Highland Park neighborhood. When police arrived, he was standing by the truck, holding a crucifix and shouting Bible verses, according to the criminal complaint in the case.
No one was injured in the crash.
Derosia was later celebrated in a list of "prisoners of Christ" on an anti-abortion Web site.
______________________________________________
Remember that I wrote this at the end of the last issue?
The next issue of Abortion is Murder will also be the first of Volume 7--May, 2009. I will include in it the simplified version of The Liberty Tree Movement and the 2009 state statistics that Clay mentions in his first note.
I will also post “Red Zone II,” Jim Kopp’s latest entry into the Stacey & Hutch saga, and two additional notes he submitted I don’t know when. (I hope you are saving all the Stacy & Hutch stuff after perusing it twice.)
If you have sent me something and I haven’t posted it and I haven’t told you why, I’ve
I will also post “Red Zone II,” Jim Kopp’s latest entry into the Stacey & Hutch saga, and two additional notes he submitted I don’t know when. (I hope you are saving all the Stacy & Hutch stuff after perusing it twice.)
If you have sent me something and I haven’t posted it and I haven’t told you why, I’ve
Well, I can’t find those five items. (That’s probably why this issue is so late.) It’s not the first time I’ve “misplaced” Jimbo’s stuff. I’m hoping of course that it’ll turn up. Meanwhile, Clay, can you send me another simplified version of TLTM just in case? And here’s more from those guys:
Dear John, To further explain what must have been a cryptic message from Tom – I received a letter a month or so back from “Tammy Sweeney of Lancaster, PA.” In the letter she claimed to be working on her doctoral thesis in anthropology and asked for my input as her thesis was on the anti-abortion extremist movement. I’ve received numerous such requests over the years and always declined to participate. This young woman, however, seemed very sweet and sincere so I agreed.
Today I received her Questionnaire and I could not be more alarmed. I am now convinced that this is not what was presented...it is not a “Doctoral Thesis” research project, but rather an elaborate, but not so clever attempt by the abortion industry to build a case for aiding and abetting convicted extremists (myself and others) by those whom they falsely assume to be the infrastructure for active extremism and the motivators for those would-be extremists to be moved to action.
The questionnaire is titled “ Resource Materials Consulted (anti-abortion activists).”
It asks for my name and date, but is silent on its purpose or origin. Perfect for a trial exhibit. It asks only three questions with sub-categories, which I will summarize.
1. If you met someone who was very passionate about stopping abortions and he wanted to know more about the ideology of the more extreme segments of the pro-life movement, what
resource materials would you recommend for information and for guidance?
2. If the person decided that he wanted to become an activist against abortions, what resource material would you recommend to him for information on tactics that could be used to help stop abortions? Where could he turn for guidance on what actions he could take, which methods are more effective than others?
3. If the person decided to dedicate his lift to the anti-abortion movement, what resource materials would you recommend for information on the precautions he now needs to take to ensure against possible threats from he government, the public, mainstream pro-life groups, informers, etc.
At the end of every question are blanks to fill in regarding what I would consider an extremist’s aid: books, websites, message boards, chat rooms, organizations, etc.
In other words, which websites would I, a convicted anti-abortion terrorist, recommend as helpful to someone hoping to follow in my footsteps? It does not require logical gymnastics to see how this data, if complied from multiple members on the POC List, could be used as the foundation for legal action against numerous websites, and even my own book.
We must use all wisdom Brothers & Sisters. Our enemy is still in this fight, something we can never forget. In His Service, Clay Waagner ______________________________________________-
Over-The-Road Musings Donut Discipline Ark/Air Space Moral Theology
Our story to date: Stacey & Hutch found new plateaus, which seemed to only reveal themselves along the way, over time, as they merrily stenciled their way across PBX-like Central Offices, leaving them with CWA union logos.
After months or even years, they realized that the position of overconfidence and experience allowed them to work on “little” things, although there are no little things when it comes to ongoing resistance.
Glazed Buttermilk Is OK, Too.
One of the realizations that came with time is that it’s not worth it to cheat on “donuts,” and it is worth the extra const, time, and effort to maintain donut discipline.
A donut being, the circle around where you actually sleep at night. A glazed donut on a trucker’s Rand McNally Atlas is perfect, the US map that covers 2 pages radius = 450 miles
Outside that radius, anyplace where Stacey or Hutch had ever visited, or knew someone , was also a NSP eliminated.
S&H never ceased to be amazed how many switches there were that were in towns 450 miles away, that they had never be en to.
It meant that anytime they came to a town to tag., they arrived at a town they had never been in, and didn’t know anybody in. Beyond that, switched could be eliminated for other reasons: intuition, location of the cop shop, an all-night business too close, etc.
resource materials would you recommend for information and for guidance?
2. If the person decided that he wanted to become an activist against abortions, what resource material would you recommend to him for information on tactics that could be used to help stop abortions? Where could he turn for guidance on what actions he could take, which methods are more effective than others?
3. If the person decided to dedicate his lift to the anti-abortion movement, what resource materials would you recommend for information on the precautions he now needs to take to ensure against possible threats from he government, the public, mainstream pro-life groups, informers, etc.
At the end of every question are blanks to fill in regarding what I would consider an extremist’s aid: books, websites, message boards, chat rooms, organizations, etc.
In other words, which websites would I, a convicted anti-abortion terrorist, recommend as helpful to someone hoping to follow in my footsteps? It does not require logical gymnastics to see how this data, if complied from multiple members on the POC List, could be used as the foundation for legal action against numerous websites, and even my own book.
We must use all wisdom Brothers & Sisters. Our enemy is still in this fight, something we can never forget. In His Service, Clay Waagner ______________________________________________-
Over-The-Road Musings Donut Discipline Ark/Air Space Moral Theology
Our story to date: Stacey & Hutch found new plateaus, which seemed to only reveal themselves along the way, over time, as they merrily stenciled their way across PBX-like Central Offices, leaving them with CWA union logos.
After months or even years, they realized that the position of overconfidence and experience allowed them to work on “little” things, although there are no little things when it comes to ongoing resistance.
Glazed Buttermilk Is OK, Too.
One of the realizations that came with time is that it’s not worth it to cheat on “donuts,” and it is worth the extra const, time, and effort to maintain donut discipline.
A donut being, the circle around where you actually sleep at night. A glazed donut on a trucker’s Rand McNally Atlas is perfect, the US map that covers 2 pages radius = 450 miles
Outside that radius, anyplace where Stacey or Hutch had ever visited, or knew someone , was also a NSP eliminated.
S&H never ceased to be amazed how many switches there were that were in towns 450 miles away, that they had never be en to.
It meant that anytime they came to a town to tag., they arrived at a town they had never been in, and didn’t know anybody in. Beyond that, switched could be eliminated for other reasons: intuition, location of the cop shop, an all-night business too close, etc.
Jimbo, I’ll continue this next issue and if I say a prayer to St. Anthony, I’ll find those three things I lost. I’ll also run that letter from Shelley I promised you and a second note from Robert that just arrived.
No comments:
Post a Comment