Monday, September 20, 2010

Abortion is Murder, 8-7, September, 2010

Formerly Stop the Killing of Young People (skyp) and soon, perhaps, Stop Killing Preemies

September, 2010 Vol. 8 No. 7
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 118
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 PFC’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 for 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, WALTON C.I., 691 Institution Rd
Defuniak Springs, FL 32433-1850 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, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
8. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
9. Lo, Erlyndon Joseph LE#234894, Collin County Detention Center, 4300 Community Avenue, McKinney TX 75071
10. McMenemy, David Robert 08168-030, FCI Elkton, P.O. Box 10, Lisbon OH 44432
11. Moose, Justin – inmate, Alamance County Jail, 109 South Maple Street, Graham NC 27253
12. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, PO Box 474701, Des Moines, IA 5094
13. Scott P. Roeder KDOC#0065192, El Dorado Correctional Facility, P. O. Box 311, El Dorado, KS 67042
14. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
15. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
16. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
17. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837 8/25
18. Weiler Jr., Robert F. 39385-037, FCC - Delaware Hall, Box 1000, Petersburg VA 23804 (new)
19. Whitaker, Vincent , FCI, Box 699, Estill SC 29918

Civil War Ruins by Neal Horsley

Authentic Civil War ruins are few and far between in the South. It's easy to understand why.
Most Southerners didn't then and don't today want to be reminded of the defeat. So people long ago tore down reminders which nature might have left standing. If evidence of the Civil War period remains today, it is normally seen in things that glorify the "Old South"--in the preserved plantations scattered across the south, or in the estates of the wealthy Southerners who lived in cities like Charleston or Biloxi.
But sitting beside a beautiful river near Atlanta is a real Civil War ruin, one that testifies to the dual meaning of the word "ruin."
The mill below was built in 1849 on Sweetwater Creek, about 15 miles west of Atlanta. It was once the largest factory in North Georgia but by 1864 most of the men were fighting in the Confederate Army, so the 60 to 70 employees at the mill consisted mostly of slaves, and women and their children. A small contingent of Georgia Militia known as the “Sweetwater Guards”, were stationed at the mill.
On July 2, 1864 Union Cavalry commanded by General George Stoneman captured the mill and village around it. On July 9th the mill was destroyed as Stoneman's men poured flammable liquid on every floor and set the building ablaz....
It's a near miracle, given the humidity in Georgia and the many years since the Civil War, that a five story brick structure still stands without any internal support at all, stands as a testimony to the destruction of Civil War. Given the weight of those walls, anything but strong mortar and pure perpendicular would have come crashing down long ago. Obviously the people who built that factory knew how to read a plumb line, and read it well. So the ruins remain.
Ruin can be a noun...or ruin can be a verb, as in the Civil War Ruined the South.
This article about "Civil War Ruins" includes both meanings.
That's because I represent people who are organizing to take this nation to Civil War again rather than surrender to the federal government who is destroying the Law of Jesus Christ and replacing it with the diametric opposite of the Law of Christ; specifically, where Jesus Christ says murder is against the law and sodomy against the law, the government of this nation says the opposite. For this reason we are preparing for Civil War. And the people I represent are doing this with the full knowledge that Civil War Ruins.
I am running for Governor of Georgia, as my position paper states, not because I think I will be elected in 2010, but to find people like myself who are willing to die rather than stand by and allow the Law of the Lord Jesus Christ to be usurped in this nation.
The vast majority who know about my campaign understand that if the people I represent can obtain the power to rule one State, we will become a State where God's law rules. Either that, or this nation will have to kill us all.
And then the whole world will be reminded that Civil War Ruins.
The FBI contacts me regularly. Why don't you? 770 838 5940 or
Wait! I know why Lapsi Christians don't contact me.

Aaron Mallory At least we can be sure of one thing. Good Evening, I'm unsure whether this email is sent directly to Neal Horsley, but regardless I have the same thing to say: I have been continually disappointed in and discouraged by our country's system of universal suffrage and democracy, but today I decided that although it's a bad system, it does inherently provide at least one surety Our system makes it impossible for someone as evil, unjust, freedom-hating, and foolhardy as Neal Horsley to be elected in any capacity in our government.

Neal, We'll see prophet man, cause it ain't over till it’s over.

More from Eric’s Chapter 3:

Philosophers such as Rawls, Kant, and even Locke, Jefferson and Aristotle tried to arrive at a theory of justice apart from the historical contingencies that give rise to societies. History teaches us how organic societies are formed and how these societies define justice. Principles of justice are indeed founded on conceptions of the good life. But ideas of the good life are derived from the unique moral-religious worldview of that particular organic culture identity, not from one universal worldview, as philosophers would have it.
The fundamental quid pro quo of any social contract is protection and obedience. For society’s protection the citizen returns obedience to its laws. Protection includes the ideas of justice and accountability. People willingly obey the laws of their society only if they believe the laws are just. And they trust their government only if it is accountable. Power is tenuous if it rests only on naked force. Stable political power is spiritual, not physical. If it is to last, political authority must rest on the public opinion that those who wield authority do so by moral right. Whether this consent is expressed formally through regular elections or tacitly through loyalty to a traditional hierarchy is irrelevant. When the people believe the laws are unjust and the government is not accountable, the regime’s hold on power is uncertain. More and more the regime will have to rely on the naked force of its police-military to retain power.
Government is about controlling people. But people naturally do not want to be controlled. Even the simplest man wants the freedom to do what he wants. Government limits his freedom. This is grating. He will allow the government to limit his freedom only if he trusts those in authority. And he will trust those in authority only if they are people like him, if they share his culture identity. Culture identity is spiritual. It is at this spiritual level that people connect with their leaders. The average man in any society has little grasp of the political issues of his day. He doesn’t understand history. He has never read the fundamental documents and laws of his society. So he has no objective basis to judge whether the laws are just and the political authorities are accountable. He feels his way through life. He relies upon his leaders to define the big picture for him. The leadership class must formulate the laws of society. Trust is essential in this relationship. If he senses a disconnect with his leaders, he starts to distrust them. He’ll begin to accuse them of all manner of evil. Eventually he’ll look for new leaders, ones he can trust. A common cause for this disconnect is a culture identity disjunction.
The events that led up to the American Revolution are instructive. On the surface the Revolution was caused by the British government, when they attempted to tax the colonists without their consent. But if you look deeper, the actual cause of the Revolution was a growing culture identity disjunction.
In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, which taxed various items sold and transacted in the American colonies. A good chunk of the American people saw the Stamp Act as the first step in a larger diabolical conspiracy designed to take away their liberties. Which liberties the colonists had in mind were at first undefined. A French-backed Catholic party in England was thought to have organized the plot, receiving their secret instructions from the Pope himself. At any moment, the colonists believed, the Anglican establishment in England was going to ship a Bishop over to America in order to regiment the colonies’ independent churches. Protestant liberties would then be at an end. Then it was only a matter of time before they would be kneeling before the hated Pope in Rome.
Memories of when the Church of England’s Archbishop Laud tried to run all the Puritans out of England and organize religion in the colonies (1630s) caused some of this paranoia.. Laud’s efforts failed and contributed greatly to causing the English Civil War (1642-1648). Parliament had learned its lessons and had no intentions of repeating that mistake. But over the decades the colonists had lost a great deal of respect for the British government. From their perspective the Stamp Act was really another attempt to force the Church of England down their throats, even though on the surface it was a tax law. They were sure that Granville, the author of the Stamp Act, and his fellow minister the Earl of Bute were attending late night mass with the Pope and dancing together with the Devil himself. Soon after the Stamp Act was enacted, riots broke out in several colonies. Stamp distributors were tarred and feathered. Effigies of Granville, the Earl of Bute, and the Devil were burned side-by-side on the public commons in most of the larger towns.
The conspiratorial bent in the American consciousness was also the legacy of the Reformation, the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Paranoia, however, doesn’t fully explain the visceral reaction to the Stamp Act, especially since the tax would have effected very few of those who rioted. The violent outbursts, the readiness to blame their own government for orchestrating a diabolical conspiracy showed that their trust in the British Parliament had all but evaporated. This process had been going on for over a century; the Stamp Act just revealed what was happening beneath the surface in colonial society.
That the colonists’ reactions to the Stamp Act were based on subjective feeling and not on objective fact is obvious to any student of the period. Granville was not a French-backed Catholic. He and the Earl of Bute didn’t know the Pope. And both couldn’t have cared less whether the colonists accepted Anglican orthodoxy. Granville was simply a penny-pinching minister, and the Stamp Act was his ham-handed way of getting the colonists to pay their share of the empire’s expenses.
England was in debt after the Seven Years’ War (French and Indian War, 1756-1763). Most of the fighting had taken place in America. And the colonists had reaped most of the benefits of England’s victory. The war had doubled the size of America’s territory, and the French were finally being driven from the North American continent. Controlling Canada and everything west of the Appalachians, the French had been a constant threat to the colonists. They had fought two previous wars, trying to drive the English colonists into the sea. Now the French were leaving Canada and abandoning the forts on America’s frontier. The colonists were also the least taxed subjects in the British Empire. The Stamp Act was largely symbolic as it would have brought in very little revenue. Britain’s real benefit in keeping the colonies was the trans-Atlantic trade. Because the war had heavily benefited the colonists, it seemed only fair to Parliament and Granville that they pick up part of the tab.
The colonists didn’t see it that way. They smelled a nefarious plot. The Devil and the Pope were behind it. They exploded in violence. Their reaction dumbfounded Parliament. Even the colonial leaders were taken by surprise. Benjamin Franklin actually signed up to be a stamp distributor, but quickly demurred after witnessing the people’s reaction. Wanting self-determination and sensing opportunity, leaders like Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams harnessed this anger and distrust and channeled it into an effective political movement.
The colonists had lost trust in the British Parliament because of a culture identity disjunction, not because Parliament had violated some abstract social contract. Over the decades the colonists began to think of themselves as Americans, not just Englishmen. Although sharing the same Western Christian culture identity with their English cousins, the American colonists had developed a unique national culture identity over the previous two centuries since Jamestown and Plymouth. When they spoke about political relations with the mother country, they began to make distinctions between the British Parliament and their own colonial legislatures. They had grown in wealth and power. Through their colonial legislatures they had learned to govern themselves. Except for the military protection England provided, the colonists could take care of themselves. With the French leaving after the Seven Years’ War, they no longer needed English military protection.
After the French signed the peace treaty, Pitt the Elder commented that the colonists would seek more independence and if the Parliament were wise, said Pitt, it would give it to them. As Secretary of State, Pitt was the genius who engineered England’s victory. Through his prescient statesmanship he had made England the preeminent power in the world, a position it would hold into the twentieth century. He knew what he was talking about.
Unlucky for England, Pitt was growing old by the late 1760s, and his party (Independent Whigs) was losing power in Parliament. He was kicked upstairs to the House of Lords and was on the back bench by the time the Stamp Act crisis exploded. His arguments for appeasing the colonists fell on deaf, stupid ears. Mediocres like Granville and North replaced him in the government. Instead of loosening the apron strings, they wanted to tighten them. So the colonists revolted.
To use a crude analogy, the colonists reacted to the Stamp Act much in the same way that a teenage boy reacts to an overbearing father who tries to impose more chores or a stricter curfew. A wise father gives a child more independence as he matures. But if instead of giving more freedoms, a father imposes more restrictions, the child is liable to rebel. That is what happened with the American Colonists. Parliament imposed more restrictions precisely when it should have granted more freedoms. And true to form the colonists packed their bags and moved out of the house, peeling out in the front yard as they left.
The specific pretext for the American revolution—taxation without representation—was less important than the underlying culture identity disjunction. If the conflict was not over taxation, it might have been over Indian Policy, or the Navigation Acts. Similarly, the specific argument over chores and curfew is less important than the underlying fact that a teenager starts to develop his own identity and will naturally seek more independence. (tbc)
Dear Mr. Dunkle, (April 1, 2010) Although the prison routinely rejects your newsletter, my mother tells me you continue to print my book. I’m glad you like it.
As you already know, I am not permitted to profit from any material I produce. So the book is a labor of love. We chipped in to have it printed and sent copies to several people. Some people have been kind enough to help defray the costs of the printing. I’m very grateful for their generosity. Maybe we’ll run another printing if there’s a demand.
Thanks for your help, God Bless, Eric Rudolph

The Art of Deception
One common tactic, both in military strategy and debating, is to divert attention from a weak point by making it seem strong; knowing that attacks and counterattacks usually come at the weakest point, one covers up the weakness, so to speak. As the Russian saying goes, "When you're strong, act weak (to lure the enemy into a fight) and when you're weak, act strong (to discourage an attack)". That got me thinking a bit; how do pro-choicers cover up their weakness?
It's simple really; abortion can never be accepted as long as the truth is known about it. So what do they do? They cover it up with shrouds of unrelated terms and irrelevant concepts. Scan pro-abort blogs (and I got bigger fish than KR on my pan here) and you'll see: reproductive rights, choice, misogyny, women's decisions, advancement, attacks, harassment, bullying, radicalism, terrorism, and so forth. You will never read or see the truth: decapitation, dismemberment, saline poisoning, injury, death, grief, guilt, exploitation, sorrow, etc. Occasionally, a horror story of rape or medical complications may be brought in to demonstrate a "need" for abortion.
So why is it that you folks can't stand on your own feet, so to speak, with regard to your preference, without making it something it's not? Could it be that horrible that you're ashamed of what will happen if the public really knew?
Cmdr from “The Keats Street Chronicles”

KR, above, is Kate Ranieri, a very wordy killers’ helper from Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania.

My friend Cal from Hawaii (Jim Kopp calls him the best lawyer in America) recently wrote a petition of habeas corpus for Scott. I signed it. Then this:

Dear John, The Court denied your motion to file a brief in Scott's case. The Court also denied Scott's renewed motion to file motions and briefs on his behalf.
-- Well, thanks for all you do, Cal. What's my next step?
-- John, Scott has been getting cheated repeatedly from all sides, both in his criminal and habeas corpus proceedings, including by his own lawyers. But he will just have to keep petitioning against the current. Maybe there will be another chance for you to file a brief on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dear John, I blame you for Bobby's little tirade. This is precisely why I have repeatedly asked you not to say Cal "attacks" instead of Cal "exposes." I am not attacking religious, conservative, or feminist leaders. I am simply exposing.
Let's look at two groups. In Group 1 we have religious and conservative leaders. In Group 2 we have feminist leaders. Who has the biggest motive for child homicide? Let's ask the old Peter Falk detective character, Lieutenant Columbo.
Lt. Columbo: "Well, sir, the trouble there is it seems to me they both have pretty good motives. I'm very big on motive."
Do you mean to say religious and conservative leaders could have a motive?
Lt. Columbo: "Yes, every man has a motive."
But what could the motive possibly be?
Lt. Columbo: "Either there was no motive at all like in those crazy kind of murders that you read about in the newspaper. Or there was a very good motive, one that makes terrific sense. And that's what keeps going around in my mind--motive."
For a motive that makes terrific sense, how about clearing the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals? So who has the best motive for clearing the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals?--Our religious and conservative leaders! That way our good shepherds look like they are keeping their flocks "in standards." But, of course, to cover their tracks, they have to deny complicity, which is where our feminist leaders come in.
Feminist leaders are NOT interested in giving women a choice. Instead, they hold up a big placard that says "Choice" but behind it hide a sharp pair of pruning sheers to prune the wild fruit off of women's branches. Otherwise, feminist leaders fear no one will trust a woman's judgment unless women can keep their pregnancies in standards.
So the deal is that religious and conservative leaders do the political dirty work behind the scenes to legalize abortion, while feminist leaders corral women through the abortion clinics to maintain standards, while at the same time allowing religious and conservative leaders to show the other face in public to deny their complicity. Here's how it went in our country, behind the scenes.
First off, years ahead of Roe v. Wade, Ronald Reagan (Republican) legalized abortion-on-demand as governor in California. Later, to deny complicity, he tells us he did not know what he was signing. Next, Nelson Rockefeller (Republican) legalized abortion-on-demand as governor of New York, also before Roe. Then, so abortion would be legal throughout the nation, conservative Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the decision in Roe v. Wade. That is how Roe got started. How was Roe preserved?
As soon as Reagan was elected president, he appointed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a ringer to the U.S. Supreme Court, to make sure abortion would stay legal throughout the land. In other words, the "Gipper," as Reagan called himself after a Notre Dame football legend, was running touchdowns for the other side, and Sandra Day O'Connor was his head cheerleader. Of course, Kenneth Starr tells us Reagan did not know; he did not know what he was signing in California, and he did not know about O'Connor's voting record as a pro-abortion Arizona senator; instead, read Reagan's essay: life what a wonderful choice. But the funny thing about Kenneth Starr is that, at p. 932 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Blackmun goes out of his way to point out that the Solicitor General (Starr) decided not to break with tradition by questioning whether children have rights before birth. Instead, he never even "questioned" the children's rights.
In this regard, Blackmun writes: "No Member of this Court - nor for that matter, the Solicitor General - has ever questioned our holding in Roe that an abortion is not 'the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.'" Fourteenth Amendment protection means being treated as a person with the equal protection of the laws. In other words, none of them ever "questioned" the children's rights!
Similarly, at p. 913 of Casey, Justice Steven writes: "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense. Accordingly, an abortion is not 'the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.' From this holding, there was no dissent; indeed, no Member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition." Note the words "no dissent" and "questioned."
In other words, contrary to the myth you have heard on television, no Member of the U.S. Supreme Court has ever so much as even "questioned" whether the children have rights we are bound to respect, let alone debated it. There can be no meaningful debate without someone at least questioning the matter. And as far as the children's rights are concerned, there has been "no dissent" over Roe. Instead, citing the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist at p. 173 in Roe, Justice Stevens points out at p. 913 in Casey that the only dissent given in Roe was over a state's rights, not the children's rights.
At p. 859, the Justices handing down the decision for the plurality in Casey reflect that if the states' rights Justices (Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas) had their way, then we would GO BACK to a time before Roe when states like California and New York, under conservative leadership, were allowed to force women to abort "as readily" as to turn around and make them keep their babies instead. In fact, before Roe, the federal government was pressuring women in the military to abort, and performing the child homicides right there on U.S. military bases!
All the Justices have been in on it, one way or another. None has ever even "questioned" the children's rights. Instead, the only dissent has been over how best to conduct pregnancy abatement. The dissenters think states should have more power to override a woman's decision to refuse an abortion than they do now under Roe.
So back to our story, after appointing O'Connor, Reagan appointed Justice Scalia to make sure if Roe ever was overturned it would NOT be in favor of the children's rights, but rather in favor of the states' rights. Scalia wants to leave it up to state legislatures without even questioning the children's rights. Next, in a classic example of presidential duplicity, the actor Ronald Reagan tells us that, seeing how he got away with appointing Justices O'Connor and Scalia to be on "our" side, he has to at least be fair to the "other" side by appointing a Justice Kennedy--another Roe supporter!
Then, he elevated Justice Rehnquist to Chief Justice, who, as Stevens points out at p. 913 in Casey, never questioned the children's rights, and only dissented in Roe over the states' rights. That way if Roe is overturned it will not be in favor of the children's rights; instead it will be in favor of letting states like California and New York go back to forcing women to abort "as readily" as to make them keep their babies, at a state's discretion.
Next, when the senior Bush, Republican president George H.W. Bush, took over for Reagan, right away he appointed Justice Souter, another Roe supporter. Conservatives were not taking any chances that Roe would be overturned, because abortions were at their peak, clearing the pews of all the pregnancies resulting from the hip hop craze (dirty dancing) and the crack baby epidemic. After that he appointed Justice Thomas, who like Justices Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist would never even question the children's rights, but instead would only allow Roe to be overturned in favor of letting states like California and New York go back to handling their pregnancy problems as they see fit according to the whim of the state legislature.
So, it is not surprising that when Casey was handed down 20 years after Roe, the members of the plurality writing the decision UPHOLDING ROE--Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter--were ALL appointed by Republican presidents Reagan and Bush. Then, when the junior Bush took office, Republican president George W. Bush, he appointed Justice Alito, who wrote the decision in favor of upholding Roe in Casey at the appeals court level! Next, he appointed Chief Justice Roberts, who is the Catholic counterpart of Bush's attorney general, Pentecostal John Ashcroft. When questioned by Senator Dianne Feinstein if he would break with tradition and force the U.S. Supreme Court to at least question whether the children have rights, Ashcroft famously answered in the negative, saying he needed to be mindful of his "currency" with the Court instead, in view of what "the Court has signaled very clear that it doesn't want to deal with" or is "unwilling" to deal with, because to do otherwise is a "losing proposition" that would interfere with his ability "to succeed on other issues."
The conspicuous reason why no Member of the Court has ever questioned the children's rights is that if one of them was to question the children's rights--not in the abstract, theoretical, or argumentative sense, but in the concrete and specific sense of due process of law--then all of the Justices have always known that it would lead to a total ban on abortions in under five minutes. But, as President George W. Bush told the press, the nation is not "ready" for a total ban on abortion.
In other words, they feel the pews, school desks, and homes still need clearing! That is the true position of our religious and conservative leaders, behind the scenes.
Then, in 2004, in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, also known as Laci and Conner's law, our duplicitous conservatives preserved exceptions for BOTH of the two categories of forced abortion reserved as a backup plan by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in case voluntary measures proved insufficient to satisfy abatement objectives. For this reason, if you read Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1841, part c, subpart 1, rather than providing but one exception for abortion authorized voluntarily according to the woman's sole determination, Laci's law also allows abortions to be performed "on her behalf" and as "implied by law." In other words, without preserving these exceptions, Laci's law would have had the inadvertent effect of prohibiting states from implementing either aspect of Roe's backup plan involving forced abortion!
Of course, even though they technically opposed Laci's law, none of the U.S. senators backed by Planned Parenthood or NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) sounded the alarm over these exceptions for involuntary abortion, not even after it became law. Instead, they have always gone along with the backup plan, because their leader Margaret Sanger was all about pruning the wild fruit off of women's branches one way or another, to make women look more intelligent to society as a whole.
You see, when Roe was handed down, not a single Member of the Court was willing to give spaced out American women yet another "choice" to add to the long list of choices they obviously could not handle. Instead, Roe rejected both a woman's right to refuse an abortion and her right to choose an abortion, with emphasis on rejecting her right to refuse an abortion, in favor of a limited albeit broad opportunity for voluntary abortion. In this regard, at pp. 100-101 of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Justice Marshall writes two months after Roe, with Skinner v. Oklahoma author Justice Douglas backing him up, that when it came to setting abortion policy in Roe, "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell."
By initial decision is meant without Skinner intervening to protect women from forced procedures to control reproduction in arbitrary connection with the punishment for crimes. Buck v. Bell was handed down in 1927 to scold states for their "failure" to apply their forced sterilization laws "outside" the confines of mental institutions to crack down on flappers on the loose.
So what happened in Roe? Remember the movie Forest Gump? The U.S. Supreme Court has been dealing with Jenny and her phases since long before the movie came out. At the time of Roe, the Court was worried: What if Jenny will not stop getting pregnant from the likes of Forest? Then the state might have to label HER incompetent and authorize the abortion on her behalf. So Laci's law includes an exception for abortions authorized "on her behalf."
But the Court in Roe had an even bigger problem on its mind: What if the problem is not so much one of mental incompetence, but that Jenny just will not stop taking drugs at gatherings like Woodstock? Then the "on her behalf" exception will not do, because the state will be doing it on a punitive basis in connection with the punishment for the crime of drug use. So the Court decided a SECOND category of involuntary abortion was needed, in addition to the "on her behalf" exception. In Roe, at pp. 153-154 the Court reasoned that it could rely on Jacobson v. Massachusetts for authority to control pregnancy epidemics and Buck v. Bell to prevent our being swamped with female sexual incompetence, with express abandonment of Skinner v. Oklahoma at p. 159 to permit punitive terminations in case there was no other way to quell drug-related pregnancy epidemics. In other words, the Court held that, when it came to drugs or other criminally-related pregnancy epidemics, state authority over women's pregnancies could be treated as being implied by law. Thus, in keeping with Roe's abortion policy, Laci's law preserves a second category of involuntary abortions, such that the authorization for which is "implied by law." In Stump v. Sparkman, the Court ruled that legal immunity will be retained, so long as forced procedures to control a woman's reproduction are at least implied by law.
In short, at pp. 153-154 the Court in Roe ruled that the "abortion decision" (whether to refuse or choose an abortion) cannot be left to the woman's "sole determination" in view of "important state interests" with emphasis on overriding her decision to refuse an abortion in view of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (forced vaccination) and Buck v. Bell (forced sterilization). In addition, to permit punitive terminations and return to its initial decision in Buck v. Bell, at p. 159 the Court expressly abandoned Skinner, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner."
Roe was never about choices. It has always been about abatement: Clearing the pews, school desks, and homes of awkward pregnancy scandals, 1) so our religious and conservative leaders look like good shepherds who keep their flocks in standards, and 2) so our feminist leaders can make women look intelligent enough to control at least the outward appearances of their pregnancies. Group 1 turns the political cogwheels behind the scenes to legalize abortion, but denies complicity in the public eye, while Group 2 corrals women through the abortion clinics to get the job done. That outlines abortion policy in the United States.
When you are ready for me to do some more exposing, I will be glad to add more detail. But let's have no more of this nonsense about Cal "attacks." Instead, Cal exposes, and it is the children who are being attacked, from both sides. Sincerely, Cal.

Greetings John, Mail I’ve sent you gets returned to me saying “no such address,” or something like that. I checked the latest Abortion is Murder, and it seems to be the right address. Do you have a pro-abort mail carrier? (No, Shelley, but that’s a PO Box and I’m sure there are lots of pro-aborts there; so, address mail to skyp instead of Abortion is Murder.)
Thank you for sending your newsletter. I pass it on when finished.
Not a lot going on here. I went back to horticulture. I was going to be laid off from the sewing factory anyway, so the timing was right. So I’m in The Landscape Technician Apprenticeship Program (through the Board of Labor) presently learning drafting.
I got in trouble for passing out Bibles here a week or so ago. No punishment, just reprimanded, and they were nice about it. They said my intentions were good, but if they let me get so many books and give them to others, they would have to let others do so as well, and some would make money from it, and someone could give away a book and then say, “She has my book.”
It is against the rules, but someone had sent me many packages of Bibles, and I didn’t know what else to do with them.
The Lord bless you and all our fellow soldiers.
Love in Jesus, Shelley

No one attacks us more harshly and truthfully than Peter:

When they called Paul Hill a murderer, it was all just a charade and all just a facade to cover up their own involvement in and responsibility for murder. How many murders are they responsible for when they directed people to wait and wait for their miracle elections and then instructed them not to take the only actions which had any hope of saving the millions murdered in the meanwhile. They’re responsible for each and every one of them.
When the president of “Right To Life” Victoria said the words, “We condemn all violence against abortionists,” and when Greg Cunningham said, “We want people who refuse to condemn violence against abortion providers to be anathematized,” what else could any abortionist who heard or read it say other than, “We don’t mind if the slot machine takes a few pennies off us if it pays out the million dollar jackpot this one pays out.”
They are every abortionist’s dream come true. Even the paltry few pennies they did take away from the abortionists. Even the few abortion seekers they did turn away from the murder centers, they’re only the feeble-minded ones, the ones who couldn’t make a firm decision one way or the other, the ones the abortionist wanted removed out of the way anyhow. (tbc)