Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 9-10, January, 2012

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

January, 2012 Vol. 9 No. 9
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 651
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 and from those who defend them.. 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

Todd Stave, who runs Voice of Choice and who rents his abortuary to Leroy Carhart so that Leroy can torture to death the older kids, is after me, as you know:

Follow up to Allentown Women's Center Project

Dear supporters and volunteers, It is my pleasure to report that the Allentown project is going very well. I am getting emails from volunteers who believe John and Joyce are getting the message. Please be assured that if we cannot convince them that what they are doing is not acceptable we have Phase II planned.

Here are a few things that I am hearing:
• John's and Joyce's voicemail mailboxes are full. Again, please do not leave messages. If they do not answer, try again at another time. A sustained approach over time is an advantage to us.
• John and Joyce are telling some callers that they are calling the police. Calling people to talk with them - in a non-threatening manner -- about things they are doing is not a crime, even if it is not invited.
• They are scoffing at the idea that we will follow thru on plans to counter protest. So far, you have shown a huge willingness to help victims in need. I have no doubt that if we need to proceed to Phase II we will get all the support needed to deliver our message.
For those of you who want to be sure you are working with someone in need of our help, the following links have been provided by Jen Boulanger.
Dunkle protesting outside the clinic:

John Dunkle outside the doctor's house:

Joyce Mazalewski can be seen starting at about 1:03 on this video (the baby road kill comments):

Please remember to stay on message. Do not argue with them. Do not debate the issue of abortion with them. Be kind and polite in your tone, regardless of how agitated they may seem. Do not use foul language. Do not be threatening in any way, even if they attempt to bait you.
You have not all had a turn to speak with them, so please keep trying until you get through.
Thank you all again. Please keep spreading the word.

By the time this arrived, the “Allentown Women’s Center Project” had petered down to nothing.

With his project Stave flushed out a thousand killers’ helpers. The only one of the thousand to talk to me for a while was “info.” Info sent me a report of my 2007 court trial to prove his point that I am a terrorist. I responded:

Thanks, info. There are mistakes in here that could lead to trouble. I meant to go on record to fix them, but forgot. Thank God you reminded me. First I'll fix them here and then transfer this to my January newsletter.

On Aug. 28, 2007, the U.S. Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against John Dunkle, an anti-abortion activist from Reading, Pennsylvania, seeking injunctive relief for alleged violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE"), 18 U.S.C. § 248. (true)

According to the complaint, Dunkel posted messages on his webpage and blog encouraging readers to kill an abortion provider by shooting her in the head.
(My name is spelled "Dunkle." No "messages" but a single message written by Dave Branca. When I got this from him, I said, "Dave, this is incendiary. If I post this [and I post everything both in favor of and opposed to our using force in the abortion war] the feds will visit me for sure. If you still want me to post it, I will have to tell them who you are. Still want me to post it?"
"Yes," he said.
I posted, they visited, and I told.)

The postings allegedly targeted a former clinician at the Philadelphia Women's Center and included her name, home address, and photograph, along with instructions about how to kill her and avoid detection.
(The true statements here are "a former clinician," her name, and instructions on how to kill her. By the time I met Mary Blanks, she had left the medical profession to become a serial killer. Dave named her and suggested a way to stop her, but there was no home address, photograph, or instructions about how to avoid detection.)

The complaint alleged that Dunkle's postings constituted a "threat of force to injure, intimidate and interfere with a person providing reproductive health services" in violation of FACE. (true)

The government moved for a preliminary injunction, requiring Dunkle to remove the postings in question and prohibiting him from posting the same or similar messages in the future. (true)

Dunkle, acting as his own legal counsel, filed a response to the motion for injunctive relief and a motion to dismiss. (true)

He argued that his writings were not "threats" under FACE and also maintained that some of the content was posted by a third party.
(The content at issue was all written by a third party.)

The government contested Dunkle's claims, including his argument that the postings were not legally cognizable as "threats" under the statute. (true)

On Nov. 8, 2007, after an evidentiary hearing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Golden granted a permanent injunction, ordering Dunkle to remove the postings and barring him from posting similar messages in the future. The injunction contains the following statement: "Nothing in this Order shall prohibit Defendant from picketing, creating, publishing and disseminating anti-abortion information so long as such activities do not constitute illegal threats and elicit violence." The court also denied Dunkle's motion to dismiss as moot.
(True, and since moot means arguable, the case might be still open.)

Al responds to part of Todd Stave’s emaiI that I posted in the December issue of AIM:Let them know:

1) Protesting in front of people's homes is not acceptable.
Yes, it is, as long as we protest on your whole block. Don't like it? Tough. Stop murdering little children and you'll never see us again. Your neighbors don't like it? Tough. They can pressure you to quit murdering little children, or to move out of the neighborhood.

2) Harassing people at their places of work is not acceptable
True. But picketing the entire block where you work IS acceptable, at least to the courts and the police. Don't like it? Quit your "job" of murdering little children.

3) We respect your opinions, but condemn your behavior
Don't believe the former, and don't care about the latter. We just consider the source: a degenerate, hell-bound, child-molesting and abusing serial child murderer. You have no moral foundation from which to condemn anything.

4) If you choose to continue to protest people at their homes and workplaces, you can expect protests at your homes and workplaces.
So? Think we care? We don't "protest people" anyway. Just what are you going to protest? That we follow the law and the court rulings? That we love little children and want child abusers to stop murdering them? That we love mothers and encourage them to love their children and keep them away from bloody child-molesting murderers?
Just remember one thing: No legislature, no court has ever ruled that a preborn human child does not have the right to defend herself. The right to self-defense is inherent in living things. They all do it, from amoeba to blue whale, from microbe to sequoia.
When government agents set themselves above and against the law, they become criminals. The Nuremberg Principle 4: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him," or "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders.'"
That corrupt judges have ignored the law and denied due process to one who has acted to defend an innocent person when she is incapable of defending herself does not change the law. Neither does it excuse those who act pursuant to such a corrupt judge's advice and break the law. Corrupt judges were hanged, as were some of the ones who carried out their decrees.

Looks as if Todd Stave’s campaign is now defunct. Here’s what I told him:

Hi Todd, your bombardment lasted for about a week – about a thousand phone calls, emails, and letters. I expected more. Most just copied and pasted the four statements you wrote for them. The four or five who went off on their own quit after an exchange or two (very disappointing).
I haven't stopped holding prayer vigils in front of the homes of Jen Boulanger, Sondra Dantzic, Charles Benjamin, John Roizin, Jay Sivitz, and Joel Lebed, but y'all quit anyway; and, your "threat" of holding your own prayer vigils outside my home never materialized. What do I have to do to get back into your bad graces?

Don't let Howard Stern know what little impact he has. The man is fragile. John Dunkle

Oops! I spoke too soon. Here’s what Todd just emailed me, with my responses in parentheses:

Allentown still needs help (Does it ever.)

Dear supporters and volunteers,
I am writing with unfortunate news. (sweet)
Our respectful requests to John Dunkle to stop his aggressive behavior have not achieved our goal. (No, they have not.)
He continues to protest in front of the homes of the Allentown Women's Center executive director and doctor. (Yes, I continue to.)
He has not gotten the message that his behavior is not acceptable. (Not yet, anyway.)
So, as promised we must start Phase II of the Allentown Project. (ha, ha, ha,)
It will take a few weeks to organize phase II and the delay is compounded by the fact we are asking for people's time during the holiday season. (ha, ha, ha)
So, until we are ready to begin phase II I am asking that each of you continue to call and email Mr. Dunkle. (Thanks, Todd.)
I am asking that each of you email and call to John. (You just said that!)
Please do not leave any voice messages and when you do speak with him be polite and kind in your message. (Many do leave voice messages, and most are polite and kind.)
Do not argue and respect his opinions. (yes)
Let him know:
1) Protesting in front of people's home is not acceptable (Yes it is.)
2) We respect your opinions, but condemn your behavior (OK)
3) If you choose to continue the home and personal protests you can expect protests in front of your home. (never happen)
4) We will continue to call to wish you a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy MLK day, Happy Valentine's Day, Happy Ground Hog's day ... etc. (no happy holiday? thank God)
John Dunkle's phone number is 484-706-4375. His email is and his home address is 204 S 4th Street, Reading, PA 19602. (yes)
He has told callers in the past that he is calling the police (nope, never did and never have)
and scoffed at our ability and determination. (That's for sure.)
Be assured that what we are doing is not illegal. (I don't think it is either.)
and that his petulant behavior is evidence that he is getting the message. (I am excited, pleased to be the focus of your attention, but not petulant. I get petulant only when I cannot find something.)
Also, please email if you are in the Allentown, PA or Philadelphia, PA areas and are willing to help in Phase II in Allentown. (Hey! Reading, Reading, not Allentown!)
Let me know how much time you can commit and what your schedule allows. (I'm free all the time, except between 12/6 and 12/14 when I'll be in California -- and since I am the only one who will show up, that's all you need to know.)
If you are not in central PA and are still willing to help, I will need to find a few people to vet volunteers and coordinate schedules. (I can put up three for a few days if they are willing to stay in tight quarters.)
Please let me if you are willing to help in the administration aspects of Phase II. (Count me in. My info's above.)

Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter
(I like you here just fine, thank you.)

Here’s more talk between Al and Neal about the prolife use of force. Brad joins them:

Al, "President Obama...asked both sides in the abortion debate to try harder to find common ground."
"Common ground?" What?
It is the government's failure to punish the murderers of preborn children that creates this situation. If the government was upholding the law (start at Article I, sections 9 & 10) private defenders and self-appointed administrators of justice would not be stepping into the breach.
The government of Kansas created this situation by failing to prosecute and punish Tiller (and other abortionists). Tiller, like any other criminal suspect, was entitled to due process of law before (upon due proof) being penalized for his murders. The government officers of Kansas created the situation that resulted in his being denied due process and being summarily executed by a vigilante.
Pro-lifers would only be searching out secret abortionists and reporting them to the proper authorities, who would then go in, arrest, prosecute, convict them and subject them to the penalty for multiple first degree murder.

The old law dictionaries defined "abortionist" as one who solicits or perpetrates the crime of abortion. The one who solicits abortion is the mother. Both aborting mother and the butcher [Moloch child-sacrifice priest] fall within the definition.

Neal, Common Ground at the gallows! How's that for a slogan.

Al, Though the Nuremberg Trials were deeply flawed as criminal trials, the chief principle established, that one cannot invoke, "I was just doing my duty"; "I was ordered to do it," and the like as proof against being personally held to account for egregious conduct. That one's own life, or that one's own loved one’s lives, may be forfeit if one refuses to carry out orders to commit heinous crimes is at best a mitigating factor at sentencing, not a full excuse for such conduct.

Neal, The response I've gotten to "The Old Rugged Cross Today" is that people are not ignoring the "babies death bound."
That is exactly like someone watching a woman being raped and saying to the other people watching that rape is bad and those men should not be raping the woman is not, still, a kind of ignoring the duty to actively intervene to stop the rape. I think it is that twist in logic that explains how Christians in this nation can believe they are alright with God simply because they let themselves see that the woman is being raped and that rape is a bad thing. Such cowardice is exactly the grounds of collaboration that many were convicted for at Nuremberg. The fault of Nuremberg was there was no indictment issued for the whole German people who were not either killed or incarcerated for resisting the Nazi explosion.
Jonathan any ideas for an image that graphically demonstrates there is an ignorance involved in allowing a crime to occur even when it is admitted that the crime exists and that it is bad.

Al, Even if there was a collective responsibility of the German people, that does not carry down to individuals.
Many of the "German" people were not Germans ethnically. Many who were citizens of Germany by normal standards had left Germany, such as Jews, who were almost all gone from Germany by 1939 yet remained German citizens.
Many citizens of Germany, born in Germany, were Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Gypsies, French, Dutch, and other non-Germans ethnically but German citizens all the same.
Many people who were German citizens were not allowed to vote. Children under 21 could not vote. Women had only gotten the right to vote in 1918, and Hitler came to power only 15 years later, before a large part of German women had become accustomed to voting. Once Hitler had consolidated his grip on power, he abolished voting.
Hitler instituted strict gun control.
His Brownshirts dealt harshly with "grumblers" and opponents of the regime. They later were shot and replaced by the SS.
Do you seriously believe the German population should have risen against such a ruthless regime? The Hitler gang was supported by the military, for he had returned them to glory and power.

Neal, Not only do I seriously believe it, Al, I can point out the actual time in reality when the German Christian opposition to Hitler could have prevented the Nazis from coming to power had the Christian coalition that was developing to stop him not been undermined by the Catholic Pope's decision to tell the Catholics to stand down and guaranteed the Catholic collaboration with Hitler by signing a Concordat with Hitler promising to provide special treatment to German Catholics in return for the political decision allow the Nazis to come to power. Those historical facts are there for anyone to see. It's just that men like you Al don't want to face the fact that God has put into our hands the power to control this world because to gain that power we must be willing to sacrifice our own lives. But if we lack the will or the balls or whatever to seize the power to rule this world, it's not God who gets blamed for it, but us, each and every one of us as individual men. For further proof of my point, look closely at who God chooses to punish for the refusal to prevent Satan from ruling this world: it's individuals, Al, not societies. Society is an abstraction that does not exist except as a figment of the imagination of individuals when you remove the individual from it.

Brad, Neal-That's an interesting point. Now you're making me re-think this. In the Bible God judges whole nations, as well, but He always(?) does so only when also rescuing a remnant of true believers out of the judged nation. Is that right? Does He never slay the innocent (David's children?). Wanting to understand this better,

Neal, Brad, the fact that God always saved a remnant before Christ was the same reason God saved a remnant after Christ: to be both forerunner and afterrunner to validate the truth revealed in Holy Scripture about the Messiah. So the matter of God saving a remnant is not the same question as the one Al raised which refers to whether or not the individual is responsible for the sins of the group that individual is a part of.
You raise a different question: the question of God's dealing with innocent people.
The answer to your question requires understanding that there is no "innocent" who are born and have reached the age of accountability. Never have been since Adam and Eve fell. We are all born in sin. By God's grace our sins are not held to our account when we are children whose child faith in Christ saves them. In other words, the only "innocent" we can see are the babies not yet born who are in Christ by default because they have not sinned, and/or those born who have not reached the age of accountability for their sins. Said again: whether we are born and have reached what they used to call the age of accountability or not is the only criteria that explains our relationship with Christ. Once we have reached the age of accountability, repentance and faith in Christ that leads to walking in the Spirit instead of the flesh is the only way to be saved from the curse of the law. This is not Neal Horsley speaking; this is historic orthodox Christianity--except for those who taught that Baptism itself was required for salvation--that became submerged in the morass of confusion created when Christians began to pretend they could be all right with God without giving their lives in defense of the least of His children if those children were at risk of death. That last point means that were I on a Jury of a woman who chose her own life over the life of her child when it was a choice of her or her child, I would admit she had the right of self-defense in this world, but I would be very concerned that if she did not repent to die in Christ, God would count her an unrepentant murderer on Judgment Day, like the vast majority of Christians in this nation are at risk of being counted because of their negligent disregard (even as they pretend they are not ignoring them) of the plight of the babies being led to death.
See what I'm trying to point out?

Brad, So, to be sure that I understand you, are you saying that if a person does not actually give up his own life (or be incarcerated in the attempt to do so) in the defense of a person who is being murdered, he does not have a saving-faith, but rather has a damnable faith?
Put another way, are you saying that our faith is known by our works, and if our works do not include the actual giving up of one's life (or liberty) in doing his best to rescue someone being threatened with murder, then our faith is not the kind of faith that saves one's own life?

Neal, Brad, you asked, "are you saying that if a person does not actually give up his own life (or be incarcerated in the attempt to do so) in the defense of a person who is being murdered, he does not have a saving-faith, but rather has a damnable faith? “
Your words make it sound like there is no difference between being willing to do something and actually doing it. Hardly any soldiers are asked to be Kamikazes but all soldiers are asked to be willing to die if that's what the battle requires. I say that men of God who do not make their willingness to die in defense of babies being led to death are examples of cowards and no soldiers at all, certainly not Christian soldiers. Paul Hill and I actually agreed on something Brad, something that was the basis for our fellowship. Paul Hill demonstrated the validity of his commitment to this battle. I am committed and am looking for other men who are equally committed.
I am not involved in an abstract theological discussion about the number of angels can be put on the head of a pin. I am involved in trying to stop this nation from butchering God's children.
But to answer your question about who will be damned, I don't have the duty of Judging on Judgment Day, so I am not in a position to speak for the Lord on that matter of what He will do with this generation of American Christians. I have the duty of being an example of what a man of God is supposed to be in this generation.
Here's what I do know. I do know that in the history of the ancient Church when the Lapsi Christians decided God allowed them to stand around and do nothing but burn incense to Caesar, or curse Jesus, or whatever Caesar's command of the day required while Caesar went about butchering in the most gruesome manner imaginable generations of Christians who refused to serve Caesar even if it meant they had to die for their refusal, those Lapsi Christians were eventually forced to publically repent in this world for their collaboration with Caesar or they were not allowed to have access to the Lord's Table. That is a historical fact. And the meaning of that fact was clear: God had the Churches who were led by those who survived the persecution without bowing to Ceasar gang up to bring the Lapsi Christians under conviction for the way they had acted while they claimed to be Christians in good standing with the Lord as an example of what would happen to them if they did not repent. While there was much turmoil about other matters in the churches, turmoil that led to grave disagreements and even bloodshed, nobody in the churches tried to defend what the Lapsi had done except to allow them return to the Table if they repented in whatever form the local churches demanded. If the Lapsi refused to repent, the refusal of access to the Table was the churches way of announcing they believed the Lapsi would go to hell because access to the Table was access to the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Those without access to Him were hell bound.
To me it looks like the Lapsi have returned and taken over this generation of Christians. In other words, I believe I am surrounded by a world of Christians who have decided all God requires from them when this government decides to sanction the butchering of the least of God's children is talk about being opposed to abortion then go about enjoying the benefits of this society, train their children to do the same, and become livid if anyone suggests their worship of the Lord is an exercise in vainglory that has nothing to do with following the example of the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ and could possibly even land them in hell.
So I'm saying as clear as I know how, Brad, my actions are designed to show God I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to avoid being an example of the Lapsi. I am willing to even die fighting to stop it if that is what has not been done yet in God's movement to stop this legalized murder. And that obviously has not been done yet. That's why I say it's what is to come next or we make the world think Jesus Christ is a cowardly hypocrite who cares more about our children than He does about the babies being legally butchered by their mothers.
That is a lie. God so loved the world...not just the children of Christians.
If I do not continue advocating the strategy I embody I believe I would be overcome with fear at the cowardly example I would make of myself.
Nothing frightens me more that being told on Judgment Day that the Lord doesn't know me. To date my fear is under control because I believe the Lord knows that were Christians to decide to help me form an army to fight this evil to the death, I would not shrink back.
So you decide what I believe about works and faith and theology and Jesus Christ because what it all comes down for me is to demonstrate to the Lord I know what it means to walk in His Spirit and not in the flesh. To me, that is what salvation consists of. All else, as Salomon noticed, is vanity.
To walk in the Spirit of Jesus Christ is to arrest the outlaws as the first step in leading people to Him. If we fail to do that, we are lawbreakers--outlaws--ourselves. Christian outlaws. I spent years telling thousands of outlaws, most of whom were churched people, that if they trusted people who told them they could get to heaven being unrepentant outlaws, they would go to hell. I say that same thing today if anybody will listen.
Is this generation of Christians breaking the law by mouthing their opposition to abortion yet refusing to even consider going to war to stop it? I know we all can foresee the babies being killed tomorrow and the next days. The matter of foreseeability is the basis for conviction of negligence, in this case of negligent homicide.
Christians today believe they can foresee the inevitable slaughter of the least of God's children yet not have blood guilt when they merely mouth words rather than take up arms to stop people being led to death. I think they are deluding themselves and risking hell for themselves and their children.
Jesus set His face like flint. So did the Apostles. As the Lord mentioned, He could call down the hosts of heaven to fight for Him if that was what was required. It was not required then. I suggest it is exactly what is required next and explain exactly how we are to do it
You decide, Brad, whether God will allow unrepentant Christian outlaws into heaven. What you decide, unless you repent of making the wrong decision, will be accounted against you on Judgment Day. I know how many theologians have put their walls around Christians teaching them they don't have to be afraid of being sent to hell on Judgment Day. I don't put up that wall because I know too much about hell to take any chances presuming to grant people a license that might end up being revoked by the Lord who, after all, will do His Trinitarian Will and no one else's on Judgment Day. I think that's why Paul said we were to work out our salvation with fear and trembling because some things will not be known until That Day and anyone who presumes to speak for the Lord on things the Lord has reserved for Himself on that Day is an example of the sin of presumption.

Brad, Thanks, Neal. Well put. May we all be counted faithful to do God’s will.

Dear John, Please make sure the Voice for Choice people get my last two letters (Story of Roe & Two Myths About Roe) with your newsletter. That way they can be educated. This way they will find out the truth that the Voice for Choice is really a voice for a sharp pair of pruning shears hiding behind the big white sign that says "Choice" to ensure abatement in case voluntary measures fail to satisfy objectives. For "Choice" is used not only as a beckoning call to persuade women to abort voluntarily as the path of least resistance for controlling their pregnancies, it is also used as a deceptive guise to make the public believe all abortions are truly voluntary in the United States.
From reading your last newsletter, I thought Kathy might be interested in the story of American hero Sgt. Meyer. So here it is.
Sgt. Dakota Meyer was a U.S. Marine stationed in Afghanistan, a corporal at the time. His fellow Americans were ambushed. Meyer wanted to save them, but American military officers commissioned by the President of the United States ordered him NOT to save those American lives. At first Meyer hesitated to save them, because he respected that disobeying the orders of one's superiors is not to be taken lightly. So instead of taking matters into his own hands, at first he pleaded with his superiors to reverse themselves on that decision. But in the end they told him, "Stare decisis. The decision shall stand."
At that point, Sgt. Meyer decided to disregard the orders of his superiors by saving American lives instead. In effect, he decided on his own initiative that "semper fi" (always faithful) trumped "stare decisis" (the decision shall stand). He decided that it was more faithful to save American lives than to obey the orders of his superiors not to, and so he put his own life on the line to save them.
For his act of courage, by act of the U.S. Congress, President Obama bestowed the Medal of Honor on Sgt. Dakota Meyer, which is the nation's highest military honor. So from this we see two elements: one is that Americans really do have the courage to save American lives, even when it means disregarding the orders of their superiors;and, second is that even the president himself can honor the heroism of those who put American lives before the orders of their superiors, even when those superiors are commissioned as officers by the president.
So what would Kathy have to say to about this? Should we condemn Sgt. Meyer for taking matters into his own hands by saving American lives even when it meant defying orders from his superiors? Should he have prayed and fasted instead, being obedient to the orders of his superiors, while American lives were at stake? Or should we honor Meyer's courage for taking matters into his own hands instead, to save American lives, even though it meant defying the orders of his superiors?
There is a parallel in this to what Scott Roeder did to save American lives. At first he hesitated, because our superiors at the U.S. Supreme Court have ordered us not to save American lives. So he pleaded for them to reverse themselves on that decision. But they refused, saying, "Stare decisis. The decision shall stand." It was at that point that Roeder defied orders by going into action to save American lives, while risking his own in the process. The truth be told, Roeder single-handedly saved the lives of more American children than have all of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
So why is it that President Obama did not give Mr. Roeder a medal to recognize the nation's appreciation for his courage in saving American lives in defiance of the orders of his superiors, like he did for Sgt. Meyer? The answer is a simple one.
Even though Americans really do have the courage to save American lives, including when it means defying orders and risking their own lives, and even though our nation's leaders really can honor the courage it takes to do so, the problem is that very few Americans ultimately have the courage to face the flood of unwanted pregnancies that will flood our churches, schools, and homes as soon as anyone makes it too difficult for abortion doctors to practice. This difference explains why Sgt. Meyer is hailed as a hero, and Scott Roeder is jailed as a criminal. It also explains why no pro-life organization condemned what Sgt. Meyer did, while so many of them chimed in to condemn what Mr. Roeder did. Sincerely, Cal.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Abortion is Murder, 9-9, December, 2011

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

December, 2011 Vol. 9 No. 8
PO Box 7424, Reading, PA 19603
Phone – 484-706-4375
Email –
Web –
Circulation – 1041
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

Wondering about AIM’s jump in circulation? As thanks for their efforts, I’m now sending it to all the killers’ helpers from Voice of Choice who emailed me (see below).

I’ve told youbefore about, the best forum going for talking about legal child killing. Every Monday “Pat Richards” posts a pro-death essay similar to this one following. Until today I have always been one of the most vigorous responders to Pat’s post. But Pat has a sidekick, I think her name is Elena Carvin, who has again taken to erasing me. This has me worried because I am afraid that editing would follow erasing, and then I could get into trouble.
So, I’ve decided from now on to stick with Pat’s posts and ignore “Comments.” That will end my including here some wonderful prolife writings. Instead, for each issue of Abortion is Murder I will select one or two of Pat’s essays, and comment.

Turning the Tables
by Pat Richards

About ten years ago, I attended the funeral of Norma Stave, a good friend who, with her husband Carl, was the co-owner of two abortion clinics in Maryland. Carl was the main physician who performed the abortions. When I arrived at the church, Carl came up to me and asked at the last second if I would deliver a eulogy. I had always been comfortable talking in front of audiences but this was a different animal. Still, I was able to get through it, using my few minutes to praise Norma for her devotion to women in need.
Skip ahead a number of years. Carl died shortly after Norma, and their son, Todd, ultimately became the landlord for their two buildings. About eight months ago, Todd’s clinic in Germantown, Maryland attracted national attention when they hired Doctor Lee Carhart, a physician who worked for the late George Tiller and who vowed to continue George’s work by offering late term abortions.
Soon thereafter, local anti-abortion advocates learned that Todd owned that building where Lee worked. They quickly organized a number of protests, accomplished their goal of getting publicity in the local papers and have been a continual presence ever since. Then, looking for another angle to get their names in the papers, they decided to crawl deeper into the gutter. They learned where Todd’s 11 year old daughter was going to school and at a Back to School night, they stood outside the school with a banner that read “Please Stop Killing the Children” and the usual photos of aborted fetuses. Then, these wackos actually put Todd’s picture, phone numbers and email addresses online and urged their followers to contact him with their “prayers.” Todd was inundated with calls and emails. Nice, huh?
But Todd decided to fight back. He compiled a list of the people who were calling and emailing him and he sent that list out to 20 of his friends, urging them to call those people. He told them to not argue with them, to just be polite and tell them that “the Stave family thanks you for your prayers.” Well, those 20 friends passed on the info to their friends, and so on and so on and within two days they had 5,000 pro-choice folks making calls. Interestingly, the calls and emails to Todd’s house came to an abrupt halt.
Hmmmmmm…Is Todd on to something here?
I talked to Todd last night. He tells me that he has actually established a group called “Voice of Choice” ( which seeks to organize a “person to person counter campaign against anti-choice bullying.” The people who volunteer are notified when a certain anti-abortion advocate is harassing a doctor and are given that person’s phone and/or email. Then they start contacting that person. Todd says they have successfully stopped the harassment in two cases already.
I have no doubt that there are some pro-choicers out there who might feel uncomfortable about stooping to the tactics normally used by the anti abortion folks. Indeed, whether or not to use these kinds of aggressive tactics has been the subject of many conversations within the pro choice movement for years. In fact, Todd told me that some national pro-choice groups have been reluctant to cooperate with his organization.
When I was in the movement, I always came down on the side of those who did not support stooping to their level. I thought it was beneath us, that we had to take the high road. And maybe I’m just getting old and cranky. But now I say screw it. As long as it’s legal, go get the bastards, Todd!

I found this post particularly interesting because I am one of the bastards Pat urges Todd to go after. I visit regularly the homes of the baby killers with my sign, A KILLER LIVES HERE. Many times pro-deathers have told me they were going to visit my home, but they never have.
I would welcome it if it happened, but It won’t, and here’s why: “some national pro-choice groups have been reluctant to cooperate with his organization.”
“Why upset the applecart when we have everything going our way now,” the head of one of those groups would say.
Of course if I were visiting his home with this sign, A KILLERS’ HELPER LIVES HERE, that might change, but the feeling now is, “He’s making big money. Let him suffer a little.”
And suffer he does. I can tell it is the most effective legal weapon in my prolife arsenal simply by the reaction it causes among the prodeathers and the anti-force folks.
For an eye-opener go to Todd Stave’s website,, and listen to Howard Stern interviewing him. Howard calls Todd his hero, his new love, and tells him, “If I were gay, I would blow you.” Stern also tells Stave that we prolifers are “Picking off your legs like a spider, I mean, what the fuck.” (Whose legs are getting picked off in this war?) Finally, they both agree that we proifers should restrict our prolife activities to prayer – Sarcastic Howard says it this way: “Pray to Jesus that this is all gonna stop.” The anti-force prolifers need to know they have a notorious ally, the grotesque Howard Stern.
Listen, I love Neal Horsley, and I’ll help him in my feeble manner in any way I can, but I don’t think his attempt to turn Georgia into the pro-life state will be successful. It would require tens of thousands of prolifers to agree to join with him, and they won’t. Holding a sign outside an abortionist’s home, though (and the sign has to say A KILLER LIVES HERE), would require only a hundred or so participants to be effective, and they just might. Get two hundred and we could visit the homes of the killers’ helpers too (like Howard Stern)
Then the enemy would respond, and the war would be brought to the streets, the only place where it can be won.
No, not really. Probably the only way it can be won is via the illegal route. But that’s not an option for me. I don’t have the courage of the fourteen PFC’s listed above. That’s why I thought up this.


I got this email today, November 17:
Hello again volunteers and supporters, Voice of Choice has been asked to help a doctor and clinic worker in central PA.
Jen Boulanger runs the Allentown Women's Center in Allentown, PA. She and the Center's doctor are the targets of ongoing, terrifying harassment by self-proclaimed members of the "Army of God."
John Dunkle openly advocates violence towards abortion doctors. He admits he is too cowardly to commit violence himself, but tries to recruit people who are willing to be violent. At least once a month he protests in front of Jen Boulanger's house, as well as the house of the Center's doctor.
Joyce Mazalewski has followed patients to their jobs, harassed them at work, and "outed" patients she recognizes from her neighborhood. She humiliates them and shames them publicly.
Watch this 2009 story, which includes an interview with Jen, from The Rachel Maddow Show - Rachel describes the harassment as "bone chilling," which indeed it is.
Just like with our previous peaceful campaigns, I am asking each of you send one email and make one phone call each to John and Joyce. Please do not leave any voice messages, and when you do speak with them, be polite and calm. Do not engage in arguments. Our goal is to diffuse aggressive behavior, not enflame it.
Let them know:
1) Protesting in front of people's homes is not acceptable
2) Harassing people at their places of work is not acceptable
3) We respect your opinions, but condemn your behavior
4) If you choose to continue to protest people at their homes and workplaces, you can expect protests at your homes and workplaces.
John Dunkle's phone number is 484-706-4375. His email is and his home address is 204 S 4th Street, Reading, PA 19602.
Joyce Mazalewski's phone number is 610-366-1392. Her email is, and she lives at 3830 McIntosh Drive in Orefield, PA 18069.
Also, if anyone has video of heated anti-choice protesters from anywhere in the nation, please email them to me or send me a link. We need documentation of these types of outrageous behaviors to demonstrate what is actually occurring.
If anyone has photos of aggressive protesters, we are starting a photo gallery on the Voice of Choice Facebook page –
Please upload any photos and, if you can, include their names, dates, and locale information. The photo gallery will help law enforcement nationwide track people who do not understand where to draw the line.
If you wish to remain anonymous and would like a free virtual phone number, just reply to this email and ask me for more information.
And finally, if you or someone you know is a victim of anti-choice harassment or bullying please let us know at We want to help.
Thank you for your continued hard work.

Today, November 17, I received 221 phone calls and 127 emails. I deleted most of the phone calls because I have pay-per-minute. Most of the emails repeated 1-4 above.
Some, though, were more interesting. I sent ‘em all copies of this newsletter, and I answered the more interesting ones. If that’s all vochoice can muster, they’re soon outta here. I’ll let you know what happens tomorrow. (Same thing. Now it’s Sunday and it’s begun to fall off.)


One of the anti-force folks is Kathy Kuhns of Reading, PA. For her Pro-Life Berks July, 2011, newsletter, Kathy wrote an anti-force essay, “The Use of Force and the Just War Theory Applied to Baby Killers.”

The first four of its seven paragraphs consist of quotes from The Wanderer, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas about just war theory. Here’s the rest:

So, taking these conditions into consideration, is it even thinkable to be a vigilante-style “pro-lifer” to shoot an abortionist, or even to imply the use of force to an abortion “clinic”? First of all, he is not acting in union with the Church, the superior of moral theology, or with the authorities of government. Likewise, can anyone suggest that we shoot the poor girls who have had an abortion, or the pro baby killer politicians, or even the bishops who cow-tow to them? Obviously none of these suggestions would bring peace, justice or order for the common good, OR save their souls. As for self defense, that argument can only be used if there was no one else to turn to for help, which is not the case. If a ten-year-old is being murdered, you would intercede if you could AND call for help; namely the police. If the police respond inappropriately as they do now to the killing at the Mills, then the moral superiors (the Church) in concert with the government, need to change the laws, with our help and support of course

Poland would have never overthrown Communism, and actually has never really rid itself of it, and overturned its abortion laws, if it had not been for the strong stand of the Catholic Church, and in particular the Holy Father. We have good solidarity among many pro life groups, but we sorely lack a strong stand by the Church and the inclusion of outside groups to our cause. Solidarity, including the use of strikes, sit-downs, shut-downs, slow-downs, pickets (Mills, diocesan offices, government offices, etc.,), rallies, media, fasts, internet, community organizing and any other means to display resistance to the current abortion laws and killings, must be thoroughly exhausted first before there is even the slightest thought of force, if there is any at all, and that has not been done. Ask yourself, have you really done everything you can do for this basic human life cause? Or, what Jesus would do?

On the 22nd of January and other targeted days of the year, we need to encourage everyone around the country to stop what they are doing and spend the day in prayer, fasting, marching, and/or picketing for the cause of life. Ask for assistance from someone, or group, that you have never previously talked to about abortion, including your priest or bishop. Think Pro Life Solidarity and it will force you to think of new, non-violent ways to end the baby killing and foster life, including eternal life.

Notice that every sentence in these three paragraphs is nonsense. For example, “First of all, he is not acting in union with . . . the authorities in government.” Of course he’s not! It’s nonsensical to say that someone who’s decided that the laws protecting baby killing must be broken should act in union with them!
Another example, “what would Jesus do?” Jesus obviously would clear a mill out, legally operating or not. That’s what he did to the money changers desecrating the temple, a far less serious offense than torturing to death young people
Notice, also, that Kathy’s plan to end legal baby killing is foolish; so, when people do not do what she asks, she can blame them. Does anyone else still think that after forty years of trying what she calls for in her final paragraph has any chance at all of being carried out?
And that, Gentle Readers, is the reason Kathy and other anti-force pro-lifers say what they say. We alive and outside prison all know that being effective would require a sacrifice none of us is willing to make. The difference between the pro and anti-force prolife people is the latter try to transfer the blame to others.


Neal Horsley and a guy named Al continue the discussion:

Al, “But the pro-life movement has never discussed going to war in defense of the things they call people. They've never even THOUGHT about it!”
Oh, yes, they have. "Pro-Life" "Leaders" go ballistic whenever anyone actually acts physically to stop specific babies from being murdered.
Even volunteer to "pull the switch" on any captured defenders of the preborn.
"Pro-Life" "Leaders" are worse than the pro-abort leadership. I was standing just behind and to the side of Patricia Ireland on the plaza of the Escambia County, Florida courthouse when she expressed her personal and official N.O.W. opposition to putting Paul Hill, prisoner of war, to death. She gave as reasons the general opposition of N.O.W. to the death penalty and their opposition of making a martyr of Hill.
To have a war requires an aggressor AND a defender. A "one-sided" or "unilateral" war isn't a war at all but is a conquest or massacre, depending on the intents of the aggressor. The "Pro-Life" "Leadership" doesn't want a war. They want the Molech priests to voluntarily stop sacrificing babies to their god, and mothers voluntarily to stop donating their babies for sacrifice. They don't want even the government to do anything to aborting mothers. You know, that would be a good thing if people would all stop doing evil things without being forced or punished. But that isn't how the world works. People do evil mostly when they feel that they can get away with it.
The "Pro-Life" "Leadership" is opposed to a preborn child defending herself against being murdered. With this attitude, the preborn child starring in "The Silent Scream" should have been condemned by the "Pro-Life" "Leaders" for struggling against the suction cannula. According to Nathanson, the baby was unprepared for the invasion of the womb and attempted to escape the cannula.
For shame! The baby used VIOLENCE in her defense. "Pro-Life" "Leaders" should have condemned this VIOLENCE in the strongest terms.
Of course this only applies to those who have not yet been born. They are somehow different from the born.

Neal, I see the point you are making, Al, and agree.
But I don't think you see that I make a clear distinction between what Paul Hill did and what I am trying to do. As a matter of fact, I made that point directly with Paul Hill when I went to Pensacola to meet with him in 1993 and I tried to persuade him that working to organize an army was what God wanted instead of assassins moving against abortionists. I had seen him on "Night Line" and felt strongly that he was going to take up arms against the abortionists. Since neither of us knew what God wanted without question I did not argue with him when he told me that it would take assassins to stop abortionists from killing babies. What I told him was my alternative would appear to be a most graceful alternative when people saw where assassination would take people. Paul Hill looked me in the eye and said if that's the way it was to be, so be it.
And that's the way it is. I am still trying to implement the strategy I advocated with Paul Hill. What I did not understand at the time I talked with Paul was there would be so few men willing to give their lives in defense of the babies. We both agreed this battle was worth dying for. In other words, when I talked with Paul it was obvious that that was what we had in common and why we entered into fellowship so easily. I tried to convince him that I knew this generation of Christian men would not be willing to become assassins in defense of the babies. What I didn't know was this generation of Christian men would also not be willing to take up arms as duly authorized representatives of a State or States in defense of God's Right to decide whether unborn babies live or die. I'm still mystified why the Lord lets people who claim His Name act like that. In fact I talk to the Lord regularly about that precise subject.

I will no longer refer to this holocaust as a war; from now on it’s a massacre.

Don’t Kill Your Baby: An Informative Pamphlet Concerning Abortion: The Murder of Children
by Paul R. Evans

Don’t kill your baby! You are being fooled into thinking that what you are doing is morally justified! You are committing murder!
There is a complex parasite at work in our nation today. Your government would have you believe that it is acceptable to murder your child, or commit homosexual acts, or accept the evils of heathen religions, so as not to “offend “ anyone.
The Bible says that these are all evils, and the Lord demands vengeance against those who commit such evils.
If God demands death for these offenses, think about how he feels when a person abandons – and murders – a living child. If that child, brutally murdered by the baby killing abortionist, were outside of the womb, he or she would, in most cases, be physically healthy.

The abortionist inside the baby-killing abortion mill doesn’t want you to think about these facts:
*You are conspiring with him/her to commit murder.
*Murder of innocents enrages God, and he demands blood – and a violent death “by the sword” – for those who shed innocent blood.
*If you don’t want your baby, somebody else does.
*The child inside of you is a living human being, highly developed, with feelings.
*Many times your child’s body part are ripped apart and sold to “science” after the murder takes place.
*Many good Christians are violently opposed to abortion, some of them have been jailed for many years for stepping in – to save lives.
*God loves you and your child, and he has a plan for both of your lives.
*Your child feels pain and will hurt when she is murdered.
How could an abortionist keep these facts from you, and why would they? Aren’t they supposed to tell you the facts?

The abortionist inside every abortion mill is a mass murderer, hell-bent in stacking up his riches through legalized abortion. They could n ever tell the fathers and mothers of the babies they kill these things. It would disrupt their evil enterprise. Someday, abortion will be outlawed when good Christians take back their country again. Abortionists are mass murderers, and when that happens, they will be likely tried by a Christian court of law, and sentenced to death.

God knows your baby. He has your special child’s whole life already planned out from this point on – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.”
You have simply been fooled, and many people have conspired to deceive you into thinking that your child isn’t a human being. “Fetus,” “a group of cells,” “part of a woman’s body” – these are all expressions to deceive you so you will kill your child and pay a baby killing murderer, sanctioned by our government to do so.
Use your heart and re ad the Sacred Scriptures. Jesus Christ understands your pain and confusion. Dedicate you life to him, or rededicate you life to him.

Dear John, The two most common myths about Roe v. Wade are that 1) it came out of nowhere, and 2) it established a woman's right to legal abortion.
The true story begins back in 1967, when conservatives jumped the gun. Old school feminists has traditionally been against abortion, so conservatives thought it was up to them to control women's pregnancies. In 1967, aiming to control women's pregnancies during the hippie craze in California, conservatives had their newly elected governor Ronald Reagan legalize abortion in the most populous state. That was more than half a decade ahead of Roe, which was handed down in 1973. Three years before Roe, in 1970, another Republican governor, Nelson Rockefeller in New York, legalized abortion in the second most populous state. Conservatives in New York, especially Jewish conservatives, were frustrated that their daughters were making the "melting pot" boil over in the unmarried bedroom without concern for pregnancy.
What the Press does not tell you is that forced abortion was rampant under these conservative policies. And not only were states like California and New York pressuring women to abort to control women's pregnancies, even the federal government was in on the act, pressuring females in the Service to abort in an effort to maintain at least the outward appearances of military standards. As Supreme Court justices Connor, Kennedy, and Souter reflect in 1992, at page 859 of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, prior to Roe "the State might as readily restrict a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term as to terminate it..."
In other words, before Roe, the Court looked the other way while forced abortion ran rampant, without ruling on its constitutionality. This is not an uncommon practice for the Court. The Court often looks the other way, even for decades, and will not rule on a constitutional issue until a case presents itself in such a way that the Court feels comfortable with it. For example, law enforcement has been allowed for years to slip under people's cars at night while parked in their driveways in order to place GPS tracking devices without a warrant. But it was only recently that the Court agreed to hear a case on that subject. In other words, the Court has a habit of looking the other way while practices of questionable constitutionality run rampant for quite some time before ruling on them.
So in reality Roe did not come out of nowhere. Instead, in Roe the Court ruled on the forced abortions that were already running rampant thanks to efforts by conservative leaders to bring women's pregnancies under control during the Sexual Revolution. It was this ruling that formed the basis of the Court's decision, not a woman's right to choose.
So what did the Court rule? Rather than establishing a woman's right to legal abortion, the Court literally UPHELD a state's right to abate pregnancies using involuntary abortion, citing (at pages 153-154) the Abatement Authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (to control pregnancy epidemics, in this case) and Buck v. Bell (to prevent our being swamped with female sexual incompetence during a time of sexual revolution), and even going so far (at page 159) as to expressly abandon Skinner v. Oklahoma (to permit involuntary abortions in arbitrary connection with poverty and the punishment for crimes--the drug use of the hippie craze being the crime of interest at the time). To the chagrin of two justices who wanted to allow the states to control everything, the Court then decided that since the states have the authority to abate pregnancies involuntarily, then as the path of least resistance women should also be given a voluntary opportunity to abort,
provided women do not get carried away in choosing abortions either.
As Justice Marshall explains the ruling in Roe two months later at pages 100-101 of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, with Skinner v. Oklahoma author Justice Douglas joining him, he says that rather than legalizing abortion under the auspices of a woman's constitutional right of privacy per se, instead "the Court reaffirmed its initial decision in Buck v. Bell" by adding abortion to the means of pregnancy abatement accorded to the Abatement Authority. Buck v. Bell was the 1927 case in which the Court extended the Abatement Authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts to sterilization-based pregnancy abatement to control women during the Flapper Craze, and by "initial decision" is meant without Skinner v. Oklahoma intervening to protect women against involuntary procedures to control reproduction performed in arbitrary connection with poverty and the punishment for crimes. Thus, the Court in Roe literally upheld a state's right to force
women to abort, and even went so far as to abandon the protections of Skinner!
The truth be told, the facsimile of a woman's "right" to abort as handed down in Roe is legally wedged between a state's right to force women to abort if they go overboard refusing abortions (or else abatement objectives will be unsatisfied) and a state's right to force women to keep their babies if they go overboard with abortions (since that could be unhealthy in and of itself). In other words, Roe never literally established a woman's right to legal abortion. Instead, Roe ruled in favor of pregnancy abatement overall, including a basic opportunity for women to have voluntary abortions as the path of least resistance.
As Justice Douglas explains Roe at pages 213-215 of his opinion handed down under the companion case of Doe v. Bolton, Roe's plan of pregnancy abatement has a main plan (Part I) and a backup plan (Part II). Roman numeral I, when it comes to abortion, the woman is free to make the "basic" decision. That was Roe's main plan: Show women the big white sign that says "Choice" and see how well they do with voluntary abatement. But, Roman numeral II, such reasoning is only the beginning of the problem, because we might need a backup plan in case the main plan fails.
In other words, there are two alternatives to the abortion decision: A) the decision to refuse an abortion, and B) the decision to choose an abortion. If women go overboard refusing abortions, the abatement program will fail, and the Court will have stooped so low as to have endorsed child homicide without making any real progress in maintaining the outward appearances of pregnancy standards during a time of sexual revolution, which was the main concern of the Court. On the other hand, the lesser concern of the Court was that if women go overboard choosing abortions, that could be unhealthy in and of itself; for example, today now in retrospect some believe France and Russia may have suffered unhealthy abortion-related population declines.
So, in such cases, Douglas explains, we have to remember that the state has important interests to protect: A) The state can override the woman's decision to refuse an abortion, citing the Abatement Authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (to control pregnancy epidemics) and Buck v. Bell (to prevent our being swamped with female sexual incompetence), when our females run around like "imbeciles afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity or imbecility" and swamp us with their pregnancy "epidemics"; and, B) the state can also override the woman's decision to choose an abortion, citing the woman's health and at some point the life of the fetus she carries. This, then, is Roe's backup plan.
This goes back to the very foundation of Roe, where at pages 153-154 the Court says that the "abortion decision" (meaning whether to refuse or to choose an abortion) cannot be left to the woman's "sole determination" in view of "important state interests," with emphasis on allowing the state to override a woman's decision to REFUSE an abortion in the interests of pregnancy abatement, citing the Abatement Authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell. Then, at page 159, faced with the trend of women taking drugs at gatherings like Woodstock without concern for pregnancy, and worried that there might be no other way to effectively control drug-related pregnancy epidemics than to allow states to pressure women to abort in connection with the criminal penalties for drug use, the Court in Roe quietly abandoned Skinner v. Oklahoma, saying, "The situation therefore is inherently different from ... Skinner."
In other words, Roe has always been about pregnancy abatement, not about establishing a woman's right to legal abortion per se; and, the decision came in response to more than half a decade of forced abortion, such that states were allowed to pressure women to abort as readily as to turn around and make them keep their babies. Thus, while affirming a state's right to employ involuntary measures, the Court ruled that involuntary measures must be reserved as a backup plan to voluntary measures, such that the state could pressure women to abort, including on the basis of poverty or in connection with the punishment for crimes, only if voluntary abortion proved insufficient to satisfy abatement objectives, and such that the state could even prohibit abortion, but only if abortion excesses proved unhealthy in and of themselves.
Now, what happened with the feminists is that the old school leaders, including even Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger back in the day, were originally opposed to abortion, because they thought it was improper and ineffective. Improper--because of the element of child homicide. And, ineffective--because abortion is an iterative (case-by-case) approach; instead, the old school (including Sanger) favored the once and for all approach taken by sterilization to control wild women.
But two things happened. One is that unlike doctors and old school feminists, the young feminists felt that forced sterilization was too humiliating as a means to keep pregnancies in standards. The other was that in the late 1960s and early 1970s feminists realized all of the sudden that they finally had a real shot at equality.
Up until then, for the past century, though not without victories like the right to vote, feminism had been little more than a diatribe when it came to the proposition that women's judgment could be respected at the career level in role model positions of authority like the men. In fact, since many of the jobs traditionally held only by men once had a strong paternalism about them, even feminist leaders reserved their opinion that women could do all of them, for fear of losing credibility. But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, all of the sudden feminist leaders realized in a great flash that now they really had a shot at this.
But there was one thing blocking the light at the end of the tunnel: other women, running around on the loose in the Sexual Revolution, were making women look like sexual imbeciles, rather than like leaders and role models whose judgment could be trusted. Feminists knew that society would not trust a woman's judgment on par with a man's if it looked like females could not even control their own pregnancies let alone their own judgment. So that is when feminists took over the job of controlling women's pregnancies. In other words, they took the job over from conservatives, who had originally jumped the gun in thinking that they would have to be the ones to control women's pregnancies.
This is why the feminists moved abortion to the very forefront of their platform. This is why they lied to women about the possible harm that certain drugs and devices could do to their fertilized children trying to implant. This is why they have rejected waiting periods, or anything else that could make a woman hesitate to go through the turnstile at the abortion mill. This is also why they have not informed women that lurking behind the big white sign that says "Choice" is a sharp pair of pruning shears waiting to trim their wild fruit off one way or the other.
Conservatives, for their part, of course, realized then that they jumped the gun. Instead, it was easier for them to deny complicity with abortion and let the feminists do all the dirty work. That is when conservatives like Ronald Reagan started saying things like "I didn't know what I was signing" regarding the abortion programs that had been implemented at both the state and federal levels under Republican leadership.
But, for their own part, even to this day conservatives still make sure that things are not too difficult for the abortion doctor to stay in practice. For example, when Casey was handed down upholding Roe, two-thirds of the justices were appointed by none other than Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Similarly, when a Republican-led Congress passed Laci and Connor's Law, also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, they quietly preserved the two categories of involuntary abortion that the Court in Roe provided for the states in case women went overboard refusing abortions: the "on her behalf" category and the not-so-on-her-behalf but let us just call it the "implied by law" category. See 18 U.S.C. 1841(c)(1).
The two categories of involuntary abortion codified by Laci's Law stem from Roe, and relate respectively to abortions performed on the basis of the Abatement Authority of Jacobson v. Massachusetts and Buck v. Bell, in manners consistent versus inconsistent with Skinner v. Oklahoma. In other words, by disavowing the necessity of applying Skinner to abortion, the Court in effect created two distinct categories of involuntary abortion: one where the state claims it is "on her behalf" and the other where, though not on her behalf, being done based on poverty or crime, the state says that its necessity is "implied by law."
All myths aside, Roe was about pregnancy abatement, not women's rights. Abatement means to get rid of like weeds or mosquitos. Contrary to false reports about a debate in the Court, Roe was a UNANIMOUS decision as far as the ruling in favor of a state's right to keep women over a barrel of forced abortion to ensure abatement was concerned. Moreover, no member of the Court has ever even so much as "questioned" the children's rights in the sense of due process of law or the equal protection of the laws as the Fourteenth Amendment fully requires. See Casey, pp. 813 & 832. Instead, two justices dissented in Roe because they felt states should be able to override as woman's decision to refuse an abortion "as readily" as to make her keep her baby, WITHOUT having to allow any opportunity for voluntary abortion unless the state wants to. See Casey, p. 859. Originally, the abatement program was started by conservatives; but soon feminists took over the
dirty work for them in a desperate bid to make a woman's judgment look as trustworthy as a man's.

Despite the truth about Roe, the reason why feminists tie Roe to women's rights is that they are afraid that without legal abortion to help them prune the wild fruit off of women's branches, then no one will trust a woman's judgment on par with a man's, and then women will not get to have the positions of authority that men have. Hence, in a roundabout way, they tie the decision in Roe to women's rights.

Sincerely, Cal.