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.


No comments: