Thursday, October 27, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 9-8, November, 2011

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

November, 2011 Vol. 9 No.7
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 101
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 to the website. Faxes and emails are free but snail-mail is free only for PFCs, $100 for others.
Because I believe we should examine 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 prolifers and pro-deathers who call force violence.

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, 5914 Jeff Ates Rd., Milton, FL 32583-0000
4. Jordi, Stephen 70309-004, FCI P.O. Box 33, Terre Haute IN 47802 6/30
5. Knight, Peter James, P.O. Box 376, Laverton, Victoria, Australia
6. Kopp, James 11761-055, USP Canaan, P.O. Box 300, 3057 Easton Tpk., Waymart, PA 18472
7. Little, David SJRCC, 930 Old Black River Road, Saint John, NB E2J 4T3
8. Moose, Justin 27494-057 FCI Talladega, P.O. Box 1000, Talladega, AL 35160
9. Richardson, Alonzo Lee 12898-021, FCI Pollock Federal Correctional Institution, P.O. Box 4050, Pollock, LA 71467
10. Roeder, Scott P. 65192, PO Box 2, Lansing Kansas 66043
11. Ross, Michael, Custer County Jail, 1010 Main St., Miles City, Montana 59301
12. Rudolph, Eric 18282-058 US Pen. Max, Box 8500, Florence CO 81226-8500
13. Shannon, Rachelle 59755-065, FCI Waseca, Unit A, P.O. Box 1731, Waseca, MN 56093 3/31
14. Waagner, Clayton Lee 17258-039, United States Penitentiary, P.O. Box 1000, Lewisburg PA 17837

Even though it’s a shameful sin to abandon defenseless victims to their attackers, it’s a far worse sin when you attempt to pass the blame for that sin onto God by claiming that’s what he wanted you to do. And that’s precisely what so many people have done with their rejection of God’s clear and sensible instructions to defend the defenseless, and with their pretenses and fake excuses for rejecting those instructions. Pride is a terrible thing when it leads you to deny your own sin and instead say that God sinned. Peter James Knight

Don’t get angry, guys, just because I’m taking the easy “copy and paste” route again. All of these come from the blog run by the remarkable killers’ helper, “Pat Richards.” Peruse them along with the remarkable Cal’s story of Roe.

The bottom line is that babies shouldn’t be dying to make another’s life better. You can write page after page about how arrogant I am, how I am a liar, a fraud, stupid, ignorant, etc. Go ahead. Make your list, shout it from your rooftops, do what you can to try and shut me up. But none of this will change the fact that babies die brutally at your hands and with your support. You can make it about the woman, about pro-lifers, about Christians, about fifty year old men, about control issues, about bodily autonomy, about Republicans, anything you can think of but none of that will ever erase the fact that there are babies dying daily. You want to hide behind your euphemisms, rhetoric and propaganda but NOTHING will make those dead babies disappear. You can make it about John Dunkle or the other protesters. You can call them demented animals if you want BUT it does not take away what is happening and what happens in abortion clinics. You can call Bernard Nathenson and Abby Johnson liars and attention whores if you want but the dead babies will remain! They will still be dismembered and decapitated and placed with the common trash so that you can have things your way. You can pretend as if they aren’t human, say there are clumps of tissue or products of conception. You can say they are non-persons but saying it does not make it true. It is what it is! The scripture says in Deuteronomy “”I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live.” Deuteronomy 30:19. You can make fun of this scripture even but that does not make it untrue or make it go away.

…honestly guys, there is NO way to go into what I think here in depth, but I will say that what if, years ago, rather than coming up with ways to get pregnant, such as embryo implantation, we had focused our attention on public awareness of all the children up for adoption? I’m touching the tip of the iceberg of such a deep discussion, so there is no need to tear into me. I know I’m being VERY basic for the sake of space, but we put the cart before the horse. Before we solve one problem in society, we create another. I don’t know what I would do with all those embryos. Just because we keep digging ourselves deeper into more and more moral issues doesn’t change the fact that I believe life starts at conception, and that morally, we shouldn’t interfere with it. As far as war, I hate war and loss of life as much as the next person, but a soldier defending this country is no different than a police officer doing it. Innocent people are killed in the crossfire of police shootouts at times, do you call that murder? Should we do away with law enforcement? War is just law enforcement on a bigger scale. It sucks, for sure, but what would you have suggested we do when Pearl Harbor was attacked? I can’t answer that question either, other than we all learn to get along !00% of the time, and no one ever break the law or try to take over other countries, stop oppressing their own, and terrorists stop being terrorists. Do you have another answer, because I don’t. I’ve watched the children of several close friends march off to war, and I’ve prayed for months for their safe return, agonizing with my friends, once even rushing to one after a dream she had about her sons camp being bombed. War is hell, and I’m certainly no warmonger. But I am a realist. We can’t even get along in cyberspace on this blog because we are on opposing sides of an issue, how do you expect entire countries to lay aside their differences and get along? War is a necessary evil, and our military are not murderers.

“women are capable and moral decision makers”…Really? Each and every one of them? There are no, not even a tiny minority, selfish, self centered women using abortion as birth control? Who are irresponsible sexually, even promiscuous? There are no innocent babies out there dying because of that, no not one? There are no young girls who are terrified, thinking their parents will kill them, and that’s why they choose the quick way out, regretting it for the rest of their lives, never having the opportunity to bear that child, look it in the eyes and be damned with what anyone else thinks, and love it all its life? There are no vindictive women out there aborting their babies because they are teaching a boyfriend or husband a lesson? Really? Not a single one? ALL women are capable and moral decision makers? Crap, if half the population is perfect, why is the world in the shape it’s in?

No need to blast you about being a murderer or murderer’s assistant. You’ve done that well enough on your own and yes, the baby needs to be protected. (Also, Pat – I hope you looked at my earlier post and tried to figure out where YOU fit in on the list regarding the grisly abortion killing business and its hierarchy.) It’s a shame that although you acknowledge that the baby needs to be protected on the one hand, you aren’t willing to offer the child the protection it is entitled to as a member of the human family created in the image and likeness of God. You don’t seem like such a bad guy so it’s a shame that you don’t have eyes of faith to see the window to the womb and the precious child growing inside of its mother.
But are you really kidding me (or yourself) when you say the clinic will prescribe birth control so that women are never forced to confront the heart wrenching decision of abortion?? Are you not aware a huge majority of women going into these mills are there precisely because of failed contraception? Abby Johnson has stated that Planned Parenthood gives out low dosage birth control to young girls in the hopes that it will fail and they will return to them for their abortion. They also hope to get them to return more than once during their reproductive years. After all, if you are on birth control and find yourself unexpectedly pregnant, then just have an abortion because you didn’t want the baby in the first place. ABC easy as 1 2 3 as simple as do re mi. That’s why these mills give out birth control pills like they were jelly beans. It fits right into their ‘unholy trinity’ (again the polar opposite of our Triune God – God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.) The abortion mill’s unholy trinity is comprised of (1) contraception – the killing of babies at their VERY EARLIEST stage, (2) sex education (yeah baby – get in those schools early and get those kids working those cucumbers and condoms – indoctrinate them young, alter their families’ basic system of values into the permissiveness of if it feels good go for it culture of today’s youth thanks be to you pro-aborts. After all, you need to keep business going and if kids are stripped of their values then they’re fair game to buy into your theology) and lastly but not by any means the least, (3) the abortion itself. Voila!! Naturally you will do all of this with the perverted, twisted and deceptive logic that you in fact trying to prevent pregnancy. Pat – I have to add – you bought into it.
You are also right, Pat, – these women who abort know they will not have their baby in a few months. Likewise, the generations that should have sprung forth from that child will never be as well. Abortion has consequences that will last for eternity. Only a fool would wager their eternal salvation and support abortion. Satan’s Fool.

John – she does it very easily. You see even with all of her degrees and titles what Kate doesn’t realize is that she is also part of an organization; however, hers has a very grisly belief system. The abortion “organization” or “cult” if you will is fundamentally a business – a profit driven business I might add, based on the perverse and misguided concept that it is a “human right” for a woman to have “abortion on demand without apology. Period.” Those are Kate’s words, sick and pathetic as they may be. It is her mantra and ideologically and cleverly marketed by their church bishops (if you will) as “free choice” and garnering the “church” astronomical profits by perpetuating the killing and death of innocent babies to the tune of approx. 4,500 per day in the U.S. alone.
It goes further than just being a busine$$. Kate doesn’t even realize that she serves a god – but it is not the One True God – rather she serves the god of child murder and gleefully claps and cheers at the systematic ritual of each and every woman’s offering of her child’s blood sacrifice as she enters into the killing mill. How dreadfully perverted and sad for her. In the Old Testament this god was called Moloch. Through the years child sacrifice has always been the same – the bloodthirsty beast demanding the killing of children as a form of worship. Hence the name of Malachi on our quite ghastly photos (yes, they’re ghastly but heck that’s abortion for you.)
The work in the abortion mills today are our modern day valleys of slaughter. In their demonic RELIGION, (gee I bet you pro-aborts didn’t know you were religious!) the abortionist offers the ritual blood sacrifice to the ancient demon of child murder. As in most religions, this demonic religion also has their dogma which is the cleverly marketed word, “choice” (a euphonium used to take the sting out of what they REALLY mean – murder). Their perverse sacrament is quite simply the abortion itself. Their ruling hierarchy is all the Planned Parenthoods out there (we won’t leave out all you little mom and pop stand alone mills either) Further, they have their theologians (feminist ideologues – Kate that’d be you and your minions or ilk – Ellen, Lucy, Sharon I haven’t forgotten about you don’t worry – or whatever your word for the day is) their priests (abortionists and ghastly clergy supporters of abortion), their temples (of course all those lovely state of the art abortion mills that we read about – some more grisly than others), their altars of sacrifice (the surgical tables – minus the stretchers – we’ve heard from patients at a local mill that they are expected to walk to the recovery room), their victims (the babies and also the moms), acolytes and/or lectors (clinic workers and technicians), guardian angels (police/security, and deathscorts), congregations (leftist foundations and private supporters), and its own version of “grace” that covers everything -- albeit not always very proportionately – (money) (guess who I’m thinking about hmm? – hint she has red hair and drives a hybrid) ’nuff said – by the way – hope all you guardian angels enjoy your summer picnic and thanks so much for all your help!! LOL
Yeah – I’ll take my Jesus any day. You folks that get your undies all in a wad about being able to kill babies without “terrorists” offering a life line to women about to commit your “blood sacrifice of abortion” deserve one another.

Telling a man to be a “good daddy” or telling a woman to protect her child or telling her it’s not natural to kill her own child are acts of shaming?
Good daddies don’t allow people to kill their children and it’s not natural for a mother to kill her own child.
These statements are true. They bother the mother and the daddy and you to hear these words because there is truth to them.
It seems to me that you want to support abortion but you don’t want to admit the reality of it. You make a stand that baby Malachi is a fake but fail to note that even if that were true the other hundreds of thousands of babies who die each year in abortion are real. What do you think, that they come out perfect and whole and are laid to rest in a funeral? No they are mutilated and thrown away. You want to turn the attention to the pro-life protesters, their religion, and words, because that takes the attention away from the mutilation going on inside the clinics. For every woman that you walk into that clinic a dead baby goes out the back. You can stand out there and dance and clap and act like the circus is in town if you want but deep down, deep inside you know the truth. Suppressing the truth doesn’t make it untrue. You help kill babies Kate! Face it! Instead of celebrating when a woman refuses to talk to the sidewalk counselors you should weep bitter tears because a baby will die and the mother will know that she killed it and you will know that you helped.
It’s not natural? How would you know what is “natural” when you live in a world that is socially-constructed and you can’t see beyond it, can’t see the socio-political structures that put that world together?
As for the remainder of your “seems to me” and “these statement are true” or “you want to” I’d say, you’re entitled to your opinions. But you and your cohorts cannot deny the ugliness you perpetrate on strangers who are private patients and then do so with some sense of goodness. I know what goes on inside abortion clinics. We’ve been through this a zillion times. Embryos/fetuses/products of conception/pregnancy tissue/baby/child/unborn/young person (does that about cover it?) die. It’s a choice that good women make for good reasons. You don’t agree. Instead you and your kind choose to make women miserable, to shame them (and you do it intentionally) for decisions that are their own and then claim to be so righteous. Like I said, you have your opinions.

To Kate and Chuck, I have to say this blog is the first place I have heard anyone refer to being a hero in this issue. It has never occurred to me, nor have I ever heard another pro-lifer even allude to the need to be a hero. Kate, however it is said by the pro-life individuals, in a good way or bad, (I admit there is bad) the message is the same: we believe in the sanctity of HUMAN life, in each and every stage of development. It is a human life at each and every stage of development. We believe it is wrong to end human life, whether cognitive or not. Abortion ends human life. What part of any of that is a lie? It may be handled wisely or poorly or tragically by either side, but it is still the truth, proven by science and reality. As far as anything at all about God, neither of us can prove or disprove his existence. I look at the intricacies of the world around me, such as the human eye, and I see no other choice but to believe in Him. I don’t believe because I need to believe, I believe because a lifetime of seeking answers to the universe leave me no choice but to believe. History is on my side. Most civilizations have believed in a creator or divine being. Some of the greatest minds in human history believed in Jehovah God. I am amazed that you are so certain, 100% sure, that he doesn’t exist. So I find no “lies” that you keep mentioning. Also, being new to the blog, I have researched many of the facts mentioned here that were called lies by you guys, from independent sources, since I do want truth in my life, and I have so far found nothing mentioned to be a lie, including Malachi, which you failed to disprove. All you did was quote others, as I did. I really am sorry that so many pro-lifers out there, as well as so many Christians, behave in a way that drive people away rather than draw them in. I have given you both tit for tat, because I felt you were the bullies of the playground, and now Kate, you say you have something called Bully Watch. I find it amazing that you are guilty of the exact same behavior you accuse others of. If pro-lifers and/or Christians out there are behaving badly, that’s a shame, it really is. But I believe you both know, Kate with your Bully Watch, and Chuck with your Aborticintrism, that believing in God and the sanctity of human life isn’t a cult, syndrome or psychosis. And I also believe that you both know that this whole thing is about people believing babies are being killed, not about being a hero, or refusing to adopt dozens of babies, which seems to be your only argument, and is a lame one, because the children languishing in the system aren’t there because of abortion, or due to “insisting” woman have babies, or a violation of women’s rights. They are there because ALL women can’t be trusted, (men too) and because ALL women (men too) aren’t respectable. Men and women everywhere have shirked their responsibility, their duty, their common decency toward their children, usually due to self-centeredness and irresponsibility. Your answer to that, like all liberals, and I don’t mean that as a slur, is to turn them into victims, and strip them of what little self respect they may have, giving them the easy way out, complete with excuses. What they, and all humans need, are boundaries, responsibilities, a conscious and a sense of shame when they slack off, and a sense of pride when they don’t. Society used to handle these things very well by our public approval or disapproval. That was stripped away little by little as morality declined. Now, anything goes, and it’s not your fault.

“Pat” and “voice” talk about Planned Parenthood:

Pat, I know what you’re getting at when you refer to PP’s “origins” and from what I’ve heard/read, there were some sketchy things said in those days. But I cannot hold that against them now, they do more to stop abortions that any other institution in this country…

voice, Yeah, like encouraging free sex, giving out low dose birth control pills that fail as well as cheap condoms that break. Sounds like they are doing their share in the abortion war.

Pat, Okay…how does PPFA “encourage free sex”???

voice, By telling kids things like this from their teen website:
People who care about and trust each other become intimate — close. But sex is just one part of a whole relationship. It’s just one way to be intimate. How about the other aspects of your relationship?

Do you treat each other as equals?
Do you trust each other?
Are you honest with each other?
Do you respect each other’s needs and feelings?
Do you care about each other?
Do you share similar interests and values?
Do you have fun together?
Do you both accept responsibility for what you do?
Do you both want to have sex at this time?

And this one is the kicker….If these things are true about your relationship, you may be ready to have sex.

Um…NO! There is no twelve/thirteen fourteen/fifteen year old on the planet who is “ready” to have sex. Sex leads to pregnancy and grown up decisions that children are not ready to cope with. The above reasons for “being ready” to have sex are not good enough for any child. It is infuriating that they teach these things to children. Why not say something like “Sex is an adult activity that should be waited for UNTIL you are an adult in an adult relationship”? This same website claims that most teens are not having sex, so why encourage the others that they are “ready”?
This same website gives information about a girl’s first period and explains to boys all about their bodies, making it clear that they cater to younger teens and even children. Some girls start their periods as young as 8 and 9 years old. So they are basically telling children and young teens that they “may be ready for sex.”
Planned Parenthood breeds irresponsibility.

Dear John, Today I would like to tell you and your Gentle Readers the story of Roe v. Wade.

Beginning around the mid-1940s, California moms dreamed of lives of pretty dresses, convenient household appliances, and what was being billed as Western living for their daughters. For example, in 1943, Sunset magazine started billing itself as "The Magazine of Western Living." The home was being filled with all sorts of whirling electrical appliances. And, textile manufactures had started producing clothing materials with bright and cheery colors. Though long since forgotten, pattern stores, where mother and daughter could pick out the latest patterns to make their own clothes, were once very popular. Those were the dreams of California moms. But by the time their daughters did grow up as young women in the 1960s, they threw it all away to wear trashy clothes and have sex before marriage with lazy long-haired boys who smoked marijuana, and occasionally even "Negroes" as they were called.
As far as conservatives were concerned, their daughters were crazy, and they needed a way out. So they promptly had their newly elected Republican governor, Ronald Reagan, legalize abortion in California in 1967. However, Reagan and his conservatives were not exactly leaving the females of California a choice. Instead, they were using the old Buck v. Bell strategy that had been so successful in cracking down on flappers in the Roaring 1920s with threats of involuntary sterilization, and now they were applying it to abortion.
The way the strategy works is simple: Either you show us how competent you are to take care of matters voluntarily, or we just might have to use the mental health exception and do things the hard way! The leverage of hanging women over a barrel like that is that most of them get the idea, which leaves only the stragglers to focus on, and those of them who still do not get the idea may also have enough other problems that few eyebrows will be raised if they are dealt with the hard way at any rate.
That was California. Next came New York. New York is a melting pot state. What melting pot had traditionally meant, up until the 1960s, was that different cultures and ethnic groups from all over the world live side-by-side in the same communities, in the separate sense. And, yes, from time to time there could be inter-marriages. But these were typically attended by a substantial social process, to give the stubborn old people from the old country a chance to get used to these new changes.
But by the late 1960s, young people were making the melting pot boil over in the unmarried bedroom without concern for pregnancy, let alone a social process of acceptance, and Jewish conservatives were especially frustrated that even their daughters were participating. So they promptly had their Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller, legalize abortion in New York, in 1970.
That was California and New York. But Texas was the big hold out. Today California, Texas, and New York are the number one, two, and three most populous states, in that order. Back then California and New York had just swapped the number one and two positions, and Texas had rapidly risen to number four, just behind Pennsylvania.
Texans are an extremely proud people. Texans knew they would never be able to look each other in the eye, or tip their hats to one another in public, if they had to admit that in order to cover up for their backward element, they felt the need to legalize child homicide in its most clandestine form of legal abortion, just like California and New York had already done. Of course, Texas did not have California's marijuana problem, or New York's integration problem. So Texas held out.
What prompted Roe was the return of our soldiers from Vietnam. It is a problem that takes a short while to materialize: First the men start to return home, then they still expect the women to do that thing where they have sex with the returning soldiers, then the woman gets pregnant, and then the baby starts to show. That is when the leaders in Texas realized that these young men were in no condition to take care of a family. Instead, all they men wanted to do was to brood about the bizarre experience they had in Vietnam, and to keep the brooding going with the help of caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and maybe a little marijuana. These young men were in no condition to care of themselves let alone a family. If anything, the woman was going to have to take care of the man and baby both. So that is when Texas threw in the towel.
Unbeknownst to Jane Roe's attorney, Sarah Weddington, Texas went to the U.S. Supreme Court as a "straw man" to lose Roe v. Wade on purpose. This way Texas could have the abortions that Texans were too proud to legalize on their own. A straw man is someone who pretends to be arguing the case, but limits his arguments in a way designed to fail, just like a straw man falls over on its own in the corn fields. That way, by losing the case, the Court would tie the state's hands so Texans could have abortions just like California and New York were having, but without Texas having to do the dirty work of legalizing it on its own, which would have been too hard for proud Texans to face.
Instead, all Texas would have to do is to lose Roe v. Wade at the U.S. Supreme Court so that the Court would tie the state's hands. Then Texas would be forced to allow abortions. In other words, Sarah Weddington was too unseasoned to realize that she did not need to perjure herself to win, by lying that her client was raped, instead, all she needed to do was to sit back and let Texas throw the case.
For the Court to tie the state's hands, Texas needed to lose on both of two critical points: The children's rights and the secondary issue of a state's rights. But even though the U.S. Supreme Court was aware of the intentions of Texas to lose the case, Texas was still expected to at least go through the motions and put on the appearances of vigorous argument. In other words, it does not pay to look complacent. Instead, the straw man is still expected to at least put on a good show.
It is easiest to see Texas acting as a straw man during oral reargument in Roe v. Wade, which is when attorneys on both sides get a second chance to argue their positions before the members of the U.S. Supreme Court, who ask the attorneys questions to clarify their legal positions. So, during oral reargument, Texas attorney Robert Flowers presumes to sit up high on the horse and goes through the motions on the children's rights: "Gentlemen, we feel that the concept of the fetus being within the concept of a person within the framework of the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution is an extremely fundamental thing."
Right away, Texas is laughed down by Justice Stewart. You have to listen to the actual audio to hear the laughter in his voice. He says in effect, you don't want to sit up too high on that horse, or you just might win your case, which is what all of us here except Sarah Weddington know you don't want to do, as evidenced by the fact that "Texas abortion law presently goes too far in allowing abortion" for that, seeing how Texans are not quite ready to legitimize their own children today!
But Texas tries to play off the criticism, saying, "Yes, Sir. That's exactly right." In other words, Texas is saying that this is a weakness in our children's rights argument, and one that the Court can use to defeat the children's rights, and when you do, don't go asking any more questions, just give Sarah Weddington everything she's asked for, because "we feel this is the only question really [keyword: ONLY] that this Court has to answer."
So what just happened there? Texas just tried to dodge the state's rights question completely!(Texas dodges the state's rights issue by saying the children's rights issue is the "only" question the Court has the answer, not the secondary issue of the state's rights.) Texas would not even go through the motions on the state's rights! In other words, for fear of winning on the state's rights, Texas would not even touch that question with a ten foot pole!
Why? Because if Texas loses on the children's rights, but wins on the state's rights, it will not do Texas any good. California and New York will still be able to have their abortions, but not Texas because Texans are too proud to legalize it on their own. Instead, Texas needed to lose on both the children's rights AND a state's rights in order for the Court to be able to tie everyone's hands, so Texas can have abortions too.
So right away, Justice White, who is all about a state's rights, gets mad and interrupts. He is mad because here the straw man, Texas, is so eager to lose on the state's rights, that Texas will not even go through the motions on the issue. So Justice White scolds Texas, saying that even if you lose the children's rights, if you at least win the state's rights, Texas will still be good to go. California and New York can still have their abortions, but Texas won't have to if Texas doesn't want to, provided you win the state's rights, because a state can still assert rights over the fetus "whether the fetus is a person or not."
Later, when the decision in Roe was handed down, Justice Blackmun, who wrote the opinion for the Court, decided to leave Texas a little reminder not to ride back home too high on the horse. Texas wanted to pretend that it had done everything it could for the children, everything at all, but, shucks, now the High Court has simply tied its hands by making it allow abortions. But even when leaving Texas a little reminder, the Court still had to be discrete about the key role Texas played as a straw man in Roe v. Wade, so Justice Blackmun tucked it away in a footnote, footnote 54.
He explains that, like so many a young man who is asked by the judge, are you going to legitimize your child today, rather than giving the Court a straight yes or no answer, Texas "faces a dilemma" and instead wants us to listen to a long story. The story goes to say that if you only understood they way things are between the men and women of Texas right now, then you would appreciate why on the one hand we do not want to deny that these are our children, but why also on the other hand we should not have to take responsibility for the children in the whole and total sense of the Fourteenth Amendment either, given the underlying frivolity of the sexual encounters that led to those children in the first place, what with the sexual revolution and all.
So, in the main text, at page 162 in Roe, Justice Blackmun concludes, saying, "In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." When speaking of children in this type of situation, "recognized in the law" is a quiet way of saying "legitimized." In other words, Texans were not quite ready to legitimize their own children that day. Instead, they threw the case and lost on purpose so the Court would tie their hands to legalize abortion in Texas.
And, that, Mr. Dunkle, is the story of Roe v. Wade. Sincerely, Cal.

No comments: