Abortion/Family Planning

Abolitionist Responds

Many years ago, Christian recording artist, Steve Taylor, released a parody song that pretty much ended his singing career and a brilliant run of successful albums. His release of “I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good” was a bridge too far for some folks in the executive suite of his recording label. The song is about an ice cream man that blows up the local abortion clinic because it is depriving his business of future customers. The best line in it is,

Excuse me, sir

Ain’t nothing wrong with this country

That a few plastic explosives won’t cure.

Yesterday on Facebook, I took my turn as the ice cream man of the Abolitionist movement. I asked what I thought was a legitimate and honest question to a post stating that “IVF kills more babies than abortion”.

The guy that posted it was someone I have been Facebook friends with for about a year and a half. He has about 4,600 followers and is constantly posting about the evils of IVF.

I asked, “[name deleted] can you start talking more about alternatives to IVF instead of just condemning it?”

Folks, I think that is a fair and honest question. I think that I stated so in my previous post. But the response from Abolitionists followers was off the rails weird.

“Like all sin the best alternative is the gospel.”

“Adoption.”

I then restated my question. “… what alternatives can be offered to people that think IVF is their only option?”

Restating the question did not help.

Abolitionists were dumbfounded that I would ask such a question. It was so outside of their wheelhouse that it simply didn’t compute with them.

One person said that folks at the IVF clinic simply need the Gospel.

I said, I’m not talking about the Gospel or adoption. What help can you offer a couple walking in the door of the IVF clinic that can’t have children the usual way but wants their own biological children?

At one point I said, we have centers to send people as an alternative to abortion clinics. Where can you send people instead of the IVF clinic? I even mentioned the saying, “You can’t beat something with nothing.” There were zero responses to that question. I can only conclude that they don’t feel an alternative should even be offered.

Other that shouting to infertile couples not to kill their own baby, they seemed to have nothing to offer.

After restating my question for the third time in the same Facebook thread, the original poster of the anti-IVF remarks then started private messaging me and demanded that I call him personally. It was then that I learned that he was a truck driver by profession. He said that he couldn’t text and drive, although he managed to message me several times when he was supposed to be driving.

I finally called him and spent the better part of an hour on the phone. He treated me like I was visiting junior high youth group for the first time and stepped me through his thought process on why IVF was evil.

During this call, it was claimed that there are one million fertilized eggs in cold storage in the United Stated. These eggs are considered property and depending on the clinic and lab arrangements, the biological parents may or may not be considered the owners of these children. (If life begins at the beginning, then they are children.)

At points in the conversation, the man seemed to confuse IVF with surrogacy. He also stated that most people at IVF clinics were not Christians as Christians know better than to pursue IVF which is why giving people at IVF clinics the Gospel is so important.

I reminded him that that was a false assumption. I told him that statistically, there is no difference in the abortion and divorce statistics between the general population and those who identify as Christian, so why would he expect people at the local IVF clinic to be any different? He was dismissive of my remark and didn’t believe it. For someone claiming to be pro-life, this bothered me. The statistics that I quoted on abortion and divorce have often been used to show the ineffectiveness of the Christian Church in the West. I also said that I have never heard any church speak from the pulpit on IVF or abortion. (I am not talking about some throwaway line in a sermon but an actual sermon on the topic.)

After letting him talk for quite a while, I again brought up what alternatives that he could offer. Again, he said the Gospel. I pressed him on it, and he suggested that it was our duty as Christians to adopt all one million kids in freezers and bring them all into the world. Adoption was mentioned as part of this discussion.

Folks. As we were ending the phone call, he promised to send me a URL to a website with alternatives but all I got from him was 3 memes on the evils of IVF.

He also said that a minister that is big in Abolitionists circles named John Speed had responded to my question. I told him that I hadn’t been on FB in a while.

Speed’s response was in five points which I will summarize below.

1 Pastors need to preach about the unethical nature of IVF and that there is no ethical version

2 Pastors need to research #1 to be convinced that IVF is unethical.

3 When infertile couples come to their pastor for counseling, pastor must know NAPRO tech and natural methods to deal with infertility

4 Adoption

5 If you really want a kid, try to get an embryo donated.

Folks, if IVF continues and Christians start adopting frozen children then I think the situation will get worse from the Abolitionist point of view, not better. More demand will require more supply. Only if IVF is ended first would this form of adoption be a good idea.

Later, the original poster of the IVF comment gave me 10 bullet points on the Facebook thread. They include: being content in your current situation, prayer, fasting, adoption, get your “baby fix” at the church nursery, or lastly seek an expert in fertility that is ethical. (Several of the points were duplicate ideas just stated differently.)

This advice was followed up with “Let us “not” to do evil (make and murder babies) so good may come (one baby delivered) to begin with.”

So, there you have it. Abolitionists don’t have any alternate ways of a couple conceiving a child. Their answer, just be happy you can’t have a kid or go borrow someone else’s.

Oh, the initial claim that IVF kills more children than abortion is demonstrably false; if for no other reason than there are few that can afford IVF. Last I heard, we have about 2. 5 million abortions annually and there are about 50 million per year worldwide. Sorry, but the math doesn’t work to support a claim that IVF kills more than abortion.

Thoughts on IVF, Abortion, and Abolitionists

For decades, the Pro-Life Movement was defined by the seemingly impossible goal of defeating the Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973. Every Republican President since Ronald Reagan claimed to be opposed to this ruling but refused to appoint known opponents of Roe to the Supreme Court under the guise of judicial objectivity. Meanwhile every appointment to the Court by Democrats was a known and vocal supporter of Roe.

In fairness, please note that it is true that Reagan was the only sitting US President to write a book opposing abortion. After his death, Nancy Reagan did her best to block efforts to reprint Reagan’s book, but I think it is back in print. I know because I have an original copy of the book somewhere.

Anyway, Donald Trump comes along and appoints judges to the Court that eventually did away with Roe. This effectively blew up the Pro-Life movement. Many supporters of biblically based political movements are only fair-weather, short-term adherents to such efforts anyway. After decades of defining of victory as defeating Roe, the Life issue now looks very different. In the aftermath, many are asking if defeating Roe was just a pyric victory.

Some in the Pro-Life camp were hailing Trump as its champion during his first term and now many of these same people are claiming that Trump is the archenemy of Life in his second term. Folks, Trump hasn’t changed, just their definition of Life.

That is what I’d like to explore in the next few paragraphs of my blog post.

There is a relatively new group of people in the Pro-Life camp that seemingly didn’t exist up until the Supreme Court tossed out Roe. These folks call themselves “Abolitionists.”

For those not too up on the issue, originally “Abolitionists” were those people that wished to wipeout slavery in the years prior to the American Civil War. Part of the argument against slavery was that black folks were human too and the color of one’s skin did not diminish their value.

With the rise of Darwinian Evolution, many people had a “scientific” fig leave to cover their blatant racism. They asserted that the darker one’s skin color, the closer to apes that they must be. Some men were clearly genetically superior to others. These, so called, scientific facts were the basis of many mass genocides in the 20^th Century. This included Hitler and his “Final Solution.”

Praising the same values and rubbing shoulders at cocktail parties with such Elites as those that later became the core of Hitler’s government, was Margaret Sanger, of Planned Parenthood fame.

Now in 21^st Century America, there is a new Abolitionist movement. This one is to eradicate abortion in all its varied forms. Folks, in theory, I support the goals of the Abolitionists, but… and you knew there was one or I wouldn’t have much of a post today, but … these guys are going scorched earth on their fellow Christians more than the guys they claim to oppose.

I have spent, and yes possibly wasted, many years in the political world. In politics you meet people that generally fall into two categories, what is possible and what should be. Guys in the, what should be basket, say stuff that sounds really good if you don’t examine it very closely. One go-to phrase is, why should I ever have to vote for the lesser of two evils? The what should be crowd usually votes for long-shot third party candidates or not at all. Guys like Ross Perot, Ron Paul, etc. come to mind.

The quest for perfection before I’ll vote for them, is really dumb. Typically, the folks that whine about no candidates that are good enough for their vote in the General Election sat on their butts doing zero for anybody when the Primary process was underway. Thus, they claim moral superiority over the rest of us and did zero work or investment of their time, treasure, and resources to make their part of the world a better place.

They are worthless leaches that look down their noses at us, the unwashed masses.

A lot of rhetoric from self-identified Abolitionists is firmly rooted in the what should be bucket. Anybody that isn’t hip and up to speed on their issue is their enemy.

Folks, it took over fifty years to convince a ragtag group of Protestants that abortion was wrong. The Roman Catholics were the backbone of the fight for many decades and standing alone for most of the fight. I am hesitant to say that the Pro-Life side could ever claim a majority supported them.

Folks, the Abolitionists, in the minds of many, have moved the goalposts. Victory was always defined as overturning Roe v Wade. It’s done. Roe is no more, and many thought the fight was over.

However, like the proverbial hydra, the head that was removed from Planned Parenthood has spawned several others. I can think of three new fronts on the battle for Life. Think of Planned Parenthood as being the evil corporation in some Hollywood movie, since most villains in their movies are corporations, this analogy won’t be far from the truth anyway. Since surgical abortions are not in vogue anymore, they have been forced to diversify their portfolio of evil. Revenue and death is what they are all about.

Planned Parenthood is the biggest supplier of transgender drugs in the world. Planned Parenthood is knee deep in the abortion pills by mail business. And then there is IVF (in vitro fertilization).

I personally have seen nothing from the Abolitionists about the transgender drug distribution perpetrated on the youth of America by this organization dedicated to weeding out the unfit from society.

The other two categories have both been used by Abolitionists as battering rams to vilify President Trump.

On the one hand, the FDA is continuing to approve generic drugs used for mail order abortions while Trump and his appointees are trying to stop them; or so it appears. I think there are some rogue folks doing what they can to thwart Trump and give him a poke in the eye whenever they can. I’m not convinced that Trump and his administration are ok with mail order murder of the unborn. This issue is leftover from the Biden Administration, and I think it will be dealt with in due time. Putting the proverbial genie back in the bottle, will be difficult with both New York and California encouraging mail order abortions and allowing the drugs to be freely sent to other states. Yet another use of the Interstate Commerce Clause that disrupts its proper application.

Lastly, is IVF (in vitro fertilization).

I don’t know if this is true, but for many years it was alleged that IVF was typically needed because women that had abortions when they were younger, finally wanted children when they were older, and couldn’t have them.

IVF was never a centerpiece in discussions about abortion. It is always talked about as allowing people to be parents that otherwise couldn’t be. In an era of declining birth rates, being parents should be encouraged. Isn’t that, at least in part, the message of Charlie Kirk?

If people are not educated on the nuts and bolts of IVF, why would you expect them to question the process? Isn’t the fact that many couples can have children as a result of IVF a societal good?

Opposing IVF is the line-in-the-sand or litmus test for many Abolitionists.

Yes, technically, the Abolitionists are correct, but … the vast majority of folks they want to vilify are just ignorant not purposefully evil.

I think they are wrong for demanding a top-down political decision. I think they need to spend their time educating the church. Lord knows we need it.

If Covid proved anything, it’s that our seminaries are broken institutions and the vast number of people in pulpits are hirelings not shepherds.

Randy Stonehill wrote many years ago,

We take our loftiest intentions

And engrave them all neatly in stone

And once they’re safely up there

We’d prefer that they just leave us alone.

Randy Stonehill Stop the World 1974

Sadly, for most churches, this was the fate of their Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage statements. Add them to a document never to be heard from again and then these same churches could bury their heads in the sand. Somehow sermons never happen on the topic of Life, or Marriage, or abortion, or anything else that Satan is using to attack the flock. Such messages might disrupt the amount being contributed to the collection plate, and we just can’t have such controversy. After all, Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world.” Too often we have a milquetoast church not the militant one.

The gripes of the Abolitionists, as I understand them, are these: many eggs are fertilized but only a few are actually implanted into the mother. The rest are literally placed in a freezer as backups in case they are needed later. This is because extraction of sperm or eggs, depending on which partner needed the surgery, and subsequent implanting of the embryos is expensive. Second, multiple fertilized eggs are usually implanted. Often, at a later date, multiple children are then aborted to prevent the birth of too many offspring at once. A woman can only handle so many babies growing inside her at a time.

Since President Trump is trying to make IVF more attainable, the above (batch fertilization and implanting multiple embryos) makes him a mass murderer in the eyes of the Abolitionists. I think there may be more ethical ways of doing the IVF procedure, but the Abolitionists simply want the IVF procedure banned by law.

I have been involved in the Pro-Life movement in various ways for my entire adult life, and I can’t name one alternative to IVF that allows a married couple to bear children. No, I’m not going to allow a discussion on adoption. That is a different topic. I am talking about biological offspring. What is the alternative when “doing the baby dance” doesn’t result in children?

Gary North had a few phrases that he liked to use in his books. Two come to mind as I consider this topic.

“You can’t change just one thing.”

“You can’t beat something with nothing.”

I think the Abolitionists need to educate their own people (folks in their various churches and denominations) on the subjects that they are passionate about before expecting the rank-and-file pagans to fall in line just because they say so.

Discouraging use of the hormones utilized for mutilating transgender people and stopping the distribution of at home abortion pills are issues that many traditionally Pro-Life people understand. IVF is a much harder sell because it is more complicated and multifaceted. IVF requires an alternative while the other two issues do not.

Again, what are realistic alternatives to IVF?

Can IVF be changed to be more ethical?

Few people try to get the IVF procedure, as compared to the number of women using abortion as retroactive birth control.

Also, how many women are taking the at home abortion pills that aren’t even pregnant? I’d wager quite a few.

Guys, I’d really like to get on the Abolitionist bandwagon, but I don’t know where you’re going or how you plan to get there. The idea has merit. I just can’t figure out if you are a grassroots religious movement or a political one. Lastly, might I humbly suggest that you get like-minded Christians on board with your views on IVF before trying to burn President Trump in effigy for his.

Why did the US Birth Rate Decline? Blame Gen X

Recently you may have seen reports about the birth rate in the United States plummeting big time. But in case you have been living under a rock or just watching cable ‘til your eyes bleed, it’s getting bad. The unquestionable truth is Millennials and Gen Z are not getting married and those who do tie the knot are not having kids. It’s so bad Trump has floated the idea of a $5000 payment if you have a kid(s). Allow me to explain the position below, if you think everything is fine then enjoy your favorite sports league, political commentary show, drama series, or soap opera as it is likely going to start soon and you better not miss it! Remember you pay $300 or so a month for it… get your money’s worth.

Bloggers note: The numbers and figures I’m using here are a low-ball numbers, obviously different professions/vehicles/cost of living area’s will vary. It’s a point not a thesis.

Insurmountable debt: Let’s face it, that college mom and dad forced you to attend didn’t come cheap. You have damn near 6 figures in student loans. You just found out the Department of Education is not forgiving them, so you have to work. Oh, and it’s not a job that pays 100K; its closer to 50K if you are lucky. Then add in a car payment, with the rapid rise in costs due to (cough the plandemic, cough, cough) the payment is damn near $500 a month. Add in about $100 for insurance and that pay check is damn near spoken for. If you have credit card debt, and a great many do… some to the tune of 5 figures, that’s just gravy on top of this mashed potato mountain of debt. The wedding is not going to be free, neither is the kiddo by the way. Now imagine doubling that, ‘cause you know marriage.

Expensive housing costs: I’m not even talking about owning a home, just rent for an apartment/house. You are likely conservatively talking about $2200 a month here. That’s for a studio/1 bedroom type thing by the way. Oh, and that rent will go up by the maximum allowed a year, in my state its about 10% So yeah it gets expensive quickly. Again, this is just the cost for yourself and maybe your wife if she’s ok living like a broke college kid. Oh, and when you do have the child, you need another bedroom right? Check out how much that costs.

Day care costs: Let’s face it, the work from home blarney (cough plandemic, cough, cough) is finally ending. That means you cannot have the baby getting free daycare at home anymore. Get ready to face reality as daycare very conservatively costs $250 a week, likely closer to $350. Add those costs up and suddenly your rent looks cheap. Oh, what’s that you’ve got a second kid on the way!….grab the lube and your ankles this won’t hurt a bit. Don’t believe me, it’s not cheap.

Lack of maternity/paternity care: I’m not talking about getting 6-9 months off here, and not with full pay either. I am saying most businesses offer no or a laughable amount of time off for new mothers/fathers. A friend of mine gave birth and was told “report back to work within 3 days of returning home.” Yeah, she works as a dental assistant. Nice. Her boss even went a step further saying, “back in my day, the wife was a stay at home mom.” More on that horrific statement later. Again no one is saying both parents get half a year paid vacation… but maybe a little empathy here? Cite my household expenses earlier if you need more proof. The kiddo(s) are going to need regular checkups (quite a few) and will likely be getting sick a lot as daycare/preschool is essentially a virus petri dish, so you will need flexibility to take days off. It won’t happen as the system is set up now.

A second income is needed just to survive: The days of only 1 person needing to work are long gone, they are over. Again, cite my expenses above, and try doing that on a one income household. Oh, the kiddo is growing so you will have to constantly be buying new clothes, toys, car seats etc. Hopefully one or both of you have parents in the immediate area to help with the kiddos because you are going to need it. Oh, and by the way, the baby boomers have cut things back over the years, you are going to struggle just to get by.

Baby boomers ruined it: They compare the younger generations to themselves, they put themselves through school… news flash (not the cable TV kind) it was a hell of a lot cheaper for tuition and cost of living was much less. Benefit packages at work included ones actually decent, not garbage, bare bones health plans and crummy time off arrangements. They can afford a mortgage just fine because they locked in a cheap 3% mortgage rate, when they had no kids mind you, because they bought/refinanced 7 years ago. 50K a year used to be a good paying job, now its barely enough to tread water in this economy/world.

Trump’s $5,000 payment to people who have a kid is moronic: Let’s be honest here. The type of people attracted to this kind of thing will be folks at the lower socioeconomic end of the spectrum. I’m not just talking about minorities here and don’t we have enough single parent households as it is? A child born into a low socio-economic situation is very much likely to end up in jail or have a life on the streets. The parents are not going to consider this money to help the child they will do it to spend on themselves. Keep in mind $5000 is also not incentive to get the upper middle and upper class to have kids. Technically those are the ones we need to have kids, not the folks at the bottom of the spectrum.

Planned “Parenthood”: Aborting the number of babies we have been didn’t help at all. It actually hurt; it encouraged rampant sex without marriage. No planning at all, just fun, promiscuous lifestyles. Now we are living the end result of allowing numerous babies to be aborted on demand.

Reality is, this has been brewing for a while, increased costs for the younger generations, plus stripped out career opportunities added with bare bones benefits has caused this. Young people now are graduating with damn near $100k student loans, add in the $500 car payment, $2500 rent, groceries, insurance, incidentals and viola a perfect storm. Now imagine tying the knot with someone who owes roughly the same. Now you owe combined student loans that damn near match the amount I borrowed for my house, I got an asset, you got a sheet of paper! Have fun paying all that off while having a kid(s)? No surprise we are where we are. Baby boomers… you created this mess, hopefully one day we get out of it.

The Chief

Supreme Court Muffs Abortion Law

The US Supreme Court reversed itself today on the issue of abortion for absolutely no reason by reversing an Idaho State law that should be a model for the other forty-nine states. The law bans abortion except in cases of life of the mother. The Court sided once again this week with the Biden Administration and against liberty. One can’t help but wonder if the Democrats threats to stack the Court have cowed some Justices into moral compromise.

Since Roe v Wade was reversed, both political parties have been weighing the ramifications. Of course, the Republicans have been having the biggest “buyer’s remorse” over this decision. Many were advocating a nationwide fifteen week ban on abortion. Such a law would codify Roe into Federal Law and allow millions of babies to be slaughtered each year. Such a law would codify abortion as a form of birth control.

Sorry, but I thought the Court found no place for abortion in the Constitution. So why are they finding one now and siding with the Biden Administration? Ditto for Republicans. Why say on the one hand that it’s not in the Constitution and on the other that the Federal government has a right to pass a law. This is insanity.

The solution is to find that life begins at the beginning and should be protected from the beginning to the end. Clearly our culture is not willing to reject eugenics as a national policy.

Trump Throws Unnecessary Grenade into Abortion Debate

Democrats are livid that their Sacrament of Abortion suffered a major setback when Roe v Wade was undone by the Supreme Court. This threw the issue back to the states. Each state has different laws on the subject. Some like California have enshrined not only abortion but infanticide as the law of the land while others have essentially eliminated the abominable practice all together.

Donald Trump is responsible for putting justices on the Court that had the principles to do the right thing. Now, Trump is trying a dangerous gambit that has little upside. He again, and I say again because he floated some similar rhetoric many months ago, is trying to get a national agreement on abortion limitations. We just got the issue sent back to the states and now Trump wants it Federalized via Congressional action. Whiskey Tango Orange Man?

Trump wants four things in the federal abortion law, a limit to 16 weeks (which we concede is a major improvement on California, New York, and many other states) and he wants the exception clause of rape, incest, and life of the mother.

First, why does Trump expect candidates for Constitutional office–the House and Senate–to take campaign positions on a clearly state issue? If the Supreme Court couldn’t find abortion in the Constitution, then why should Congress claim they have the power to add it unilaterally?

Second, at 16 weeks, all we are doing is trying to reinstate abortion as a form of birth control. Less than one percent of abortions when it was legal under Roe were for such situations as rape, incest, or life of the mother. The few have always been the grounds for slaughtering the many.

If Trump is simply trying to illustrate that Democrats are hellbent on abortion being legal everywhere, for all nine months of pregnancy, and daring them to defend this extreme position, maybe he makes a political point, but I see weak-kneed Republicans as terrified that Roe is gone. Like many other issues in politics, it was safe to fundraise on an issue that they have never been willing to correct via the legislative process. Repeal and replace Obamacare being the other example on the Republican side of the ledger, immigration on the Democrat side. As stated before, politicians would rather campaign on an issue than actually try to fix it.

Oh, 16 weeks is on the edge of viability under current medical knowledge and about the time folks begin noticing the “baby bump” on pregnant women.

When Roe was legal, Planned Parenthood would never report cases of rape and incest to law enforcement so what makes you think they will now? They will just call it that in order to kill the baby, but no police reports will be generated. They will hide behind HIPAA, and other privacy laws and it will be back to business as usual.

The only potentially moral reason for abortion is an argument of self-defense in the rare case of the mother’s life being balanced with her child’s. The reality is that the life of the mother is the only time a decision is made between a woman and her doctor.

Trump is wrong to float this idea even if it is just to flush-out the extreme views of the Democrats. Abortion is wrong be it 16 hours, weeks, or in the case of California 16 months. Abortion is wrong in cases or rape and incest. Better to punish the offenders and place the baby up for adoption if mom can’t care for the child.

Lastly, Trump just galls me when he uses the Disney lie of following your heart when dealing with abortion.

But I tell people, No. 1, you have to go with your heart. You have to go with your heart.
Trump promotes abortion compromise as Democrats push issue in 2024 race

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? — Jeremiah 17:9

Sorry Donald but you can’t be a child of God and offer your children to Moloch. Furthermore, asking God to Bless America when we serve other gods is using God’s name in vain. Abortion is a violation of several of the Ten Commandments in one act. Any nation supporting such abominations is on the chopping block of divine judgement.

Trans Rights =/= Parental Rights

Who wants to be a parent in California right now? Anyone? You in the back? Oh, your hand wasn’t up. Folks, the hardest job in the world right now in my humble opinion is to be a parent in California.

Here is my reasoning.

It used to be if you did anything out of line in school (I am talking daycare, elementary school, high school) your parents were notified. Yup, you wet your pants, got bad grades, talked back etc. parents were notified, usually with a call from principal, or a note from teacher. The results at home were never going to be good. Usually, you prayed your parents would get you late, at least it would prolong the time prior to punishment.

Those days are long gone.

California over the last decade has eroded parental notification in almost every sense of the word. If you have a girl (biological female) she can have an abortion and you wouldn’t even be aware? Oh, let’s go one step further, your child’s counselor can drive her to the abortion clinic and again, you would never even be told. That’s not just the law, it’s in the state constitution. If a teacher/admin notifies said parent, it’s termination. You violated that minor person’s rights. You get no due process. Meanwhile you will never even know your girl had an abortion done.

Gets worse though, believe it or not. Now your child will get to learn about sex-ed on steroids. Yep, just check out the new books entered into the curriculum these past few years. Now full-on sex is essentially taught. Also, gay/lesbian sex as well. Want multiple partners? Not a problem. Oh, by the way you cannot opt your child out of this? Sorry, even if it’s a religious based reason. Your child will learn that gay/lesbian sex and relationships are just fine, and you’re beliefs as a parent are bigoted. Cool. Maybe this is why at one of my mother’s charter schools (elementary) one student was caught performing oral sex on the opposite gender in a bathroom. Did either party get in trouble? Nope, because one student claimed their “parents would kill them” the school brushed it under the rug. No one found out. Yep, your child could have been on the receiving/giving end of this and you would never even find out. Yep.

Could it get worse? Yes, far worse.

Trans activists have gone even further. It’s scary. Not only is there a trans heavy curriculum; acceptance, and learning all the genders and pronouns, your child can even play dress up at school! Yep, if your child decides they don’t want to be David, they would rather be Dana, the school will take care of that. See after you drop off your child (elementary included btw) and your child tells a teacher/admin they identify as the opposite gender; they are led to a gender-neutral changing room. Complete with clothing the opposite gender wears. (Talk about lost and found.) They are free to play dress up. Even better, the children return to the office prior to you picking them up and change back into the clothing you dropped them off in. You never even know. Your child is cosplaying the opposite gender and you will have no clue.

Worse yet, did you know when your child is 18, they can/will go to Planned Parenthood and get a prescription for gender therapy drugs? Yeah, and you again will not know. They make the kid sign a CYA (cover your booty) disclosure document and poof; they get drugs to alter their sex/gender/look. Oh, under California law, all health insurers are required to pay for these gender bending children, but again it is illegal for you to be notified. After one year on the steroids, they can get their God-given organs cut off, again, thanks in part to mom and dad’s medical insurance. Aren’t you glad Obamacare allows them to be covered on your policy until age 26?

This above all can and will happen if your child just says they want to be a _____

My take on the issue is it is a sin and a crime to do this to a child, they are developing and have no idea about their identity yet. Just because a child goes through mommy’s underwear drawer doesn’t mean they want to be a girl. Heck even if child is in the men’s/women’s locker room/bathroom and sees a naked person of the same gender and doesn’t hate it doesn’t mean they are gay. And to keep it from their parents? WOW, just WOW. Then again, none of the above may apply, once a parent/teacher/authority figure manipulates a child to start down this road, it’s virtually illegal for them to turn back.

Oh, by the way, two school districts in CA have gone against the state mandate of not notifying parents, and CA Atty General Rob Bonta is suing them both. Yep, we have our priorities straight, don’t we? Reading, writing arithmetic (that’s math if you’re from Rio Linda) don’t matter. But if you want to play dress up… by all means we will provide.

I blame Caitlyn (Bruce) Jenner for this. In my opinion this freak show took it mainstream. Target decided to make their bathroom policy use whichever one you want. Schools added pronoun education to their curriculum, and laws were put in place to stop corporations from terminating folks who were trans, making them a protected class. Bathrooms have been mandated to be gender neutral at some locations.

At my office our 2 gender specific bathrooms in the hallway were required to be changed. By orders of the City, they even sent in a very large muscular man to make sure they knew they weren’t kidding. If that wasn’t enough a $10,000 a day fine would be levied. At the salsa bar they converted the men’s bathroom to a “family bathroom.” By the way this likely runs completely contrary to the beliefs of the Hispanic family that owns/runs it. But oh well. Conform or be shut down.

The question we should be asking is why? Why are we normalizing this behavior? Why are we going behind parent’s backs? Check out the suicide rate for transgender folks… it’ll blow your mind. Do we know what these folks are truly injecting into their bodies? Do we? I think there are a lot of older adults who think it’s cute that children are making themselves into a real-life Mr. Potato Head. But they never thought of the consequences. You are not just wearing the opposite genders clothes, you are chemically changing your body, blocking certain hormones and adding others. Your biological body was not supposed to be exposed to this kind of punishment. This is the part that should be infuriating to a parent, because by the time you likely get around to finding out about your child, it is far too late. Under California law, a parent can go to jail and/or lose custody of said child if they object.

I want to ask you, if I am a biological boy and I choose after my 18^th birthday that I want to be a girl, would you let me? My answer would be ok, I guess, your body, your choice, and you are technically an adult. I would be upset and hope my child would reconsider. My point being, why is it ok for a pre-teen to wear girl’s panties, a skirt, and a short cut top and not let their parents know? There is more to being a member of the opposite sex then wearing clothes, no matter if you tuck your package or put your fake tits on.

Still want to have kids in California? Think long and hard, as it appears some in our schools want to play with your children.

Also, how in the world did we let a miniscule percentage, a fraction of 1% of the population become shot callers on this? By God, we are screwed as a country.

Hell Hath No Fury

One of the best lines in the movie Gladiator is at the beginning when Russel Crow, playing General Maximus, is about to release the full might of his Roman troops on a bunch of barbarians. “At my signal, unleash hell.”

Today, a bishop in the Catholic Church, did something similar. He pronounced that he was excommunicating House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. As a result of this pronouncement, she is now banned from Holy Communion. I will get into this more in a minute but let’s look this news story. First the pronouncement of the bishop.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone announced Friday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is barred from receiving Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion stance — marking an escalation in a decades-long tension between the Roman Catholic Church and liberal Democratic politicians on abortion.
Cordileone has written to the California Democrat, informing her that she should not present herself for Holy Communion at Mass, and that priests will not distribute communion to her if she does present herself.
“A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others. Therefore, universal Church law provides that such persons ‘are not to be admitted to Holy Communion,'” he says in the letter.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is unambiguous on the question of abortion, both in procuring one and assisting in the practice: “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion,” the catechism says. “This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”
“Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” it says, before calling abortion and infanticide “abominable crimes.”
It also declares that “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.”
San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

So, there you have it, Nancy Pelosi, and by extension, anyone claiming to be a Christian that participates in or promotes abortion, has violated God’s Law and helped commit “abominable crimes” and such a person is to be excommunicated.

Folks, this is a really big deal. Nancy has been declared an impenitent sinner and in the eyes of the Church, she has literally been turned over to Satan.

Excommunication is the Church’s most severe penalty imposed for particularly grave sins. Through baptism, a person is incorporated into the body of the Church through which there is a “communication” of spiritual goods. By committing a particularly grave sin and engaging in activities which cause grave scandal and fracture the body of the Church, that communication ceases, and the person is deprived of receiving the sacraments and other privileges.
The practice of excommunication arose in the early Church. In his First Letter to the Corinthians, St. Paul castigated that community for tolerating the practice of incest– “a man living with his father’s wife” (I Corinthians 5:1). He admonished the Corinthians for not removing the offender from their midst. St. Paul said, “I hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord” (5:5). St. Paul further warned against associating with anyone who bears the title “brother” (indicating being a believer and part of the Church) but who is immoral, covetous, an idolater, an abusive person, a drunkard, or a thief. He then closed the passage by quoting from the Torah, “Expel the wicked man from your midst” (Deuteronomy 6:13).
What is excommunication?

Did you get that in the above paragraph? “I hand him over to Satan …”

Part of excommunication is that no one that identifies themselves as a Christian is to associate with her. Nancy is cutoff from God, and any fellowship with other Christians. She is to be shunned.

An excommunicated person also cannot be received into a public association of the Christian faithful.

To allow Nancy to claim to be a Christian in good standing is wrong. By allowing her to remain in the Church she is leading others into error. This must end.

A bishop may directly impose the penalty of excommunication, but only for the most serious offenses and after giving due warning (#1318). Following the same rationale of the early Church, this severe penalty intends to correct the individual and to foster better church discipline (#1317). As the shepherd of his diocese, a bishop must protect both the souls of the faithful from the infection of error and sin, and of those who are jeopardizing their salvation.

Excommunication is a warning that Nancy Pelosi is going straight to hell unless she genuinely repents.

We must keep in mind that the purpose of excommunication is to shock the sinner into repentance and conversion. Excommunication is a powerful way of making a person realize his immortal soul is in jeopardy. Excommunication does not “lock the door” of the Church to the person forever, but hopes to bring the person back into communion with the whole Church. Moreover, this penalty awakens all of the faithful to the severity of these sins and deters them from the commission of these sins. This line of thought is highlighted in the Catechism when it speaks of the automatic excommunication for abortion: “The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society”

Oh, one little nugget in the Fox News story to add some context, Bishop Cordileone sent the warning letter to Speaker Pelosi BEFORE the draft of the Supreme Court decision was leaked to the public.

Cordileone says in his letter that he wrote to her on April 7, informing her that “should you not publicly repudiate your advocacy for abortion ‘rights’ or else refrain from referring to your Catholic faith in public and receiving Holy Communion, I would have no choice but to make a declaration, in keeping with canon 915, that you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” He says that since that time, she has not done so.
San Francisco archbishop bars Pelosi from receiving Holy Communion due to abortion support

The Bishop sent his letter April 7^th and the Draft of the Supreme Court decision was published by Politico May 2, 2022.

Ok, get in Nancy’s shoes for a second. Your spiritual shepherd has told you that you need to repent for your sin of promoting, encouraging, and funding abortion, a grave moral sin, and then the nine in black robes agree with your bishop. What should you do?

Repent or double-down on your sin?

Let’s see what happened.

Nancy encourages the mob to get even with her fellow Catholics on the Court and makes sure anyone on her side of the aisle has their home address to insure maximum impact of these protests. Oh, by the way this is enabling a violation of Federal law which says judge’s homes are off limits.

She also doubles-down on trying to overturn the Court’s decision before its even announced.

Then she triples-down by trying to fast-track a law to make abortion legal for all nine months of the pregnancy in all 50-states.

Meanwhile other Catholic politicians in her Party are trying to protect abortion as it is under Roe and take it even further by making euthanasia legal from conception thru at least the first year of life.

Given all this, can any reasonable person think that the Bishop had any option but to throw her out? Nope.

Nancy is hellbent on killing and killing and more killing. She is the very definition of unrepentant.

We here at the blog are grateful that the Bishop did this; however, the Catholic Church has many weasels in it and it remains to be seen if the Church has his back in a good way or like Brutus did for Julius Caesar.

Roe v Wade and The Supreme Court: What it Means for You

If you haven’t been living under a rock, are completely delusional, or related to Aaron or George Park, you likely have heard about the leaked Supreme Court documents regarding Roe vs Wade. Specifically, the court will overturn the ruling and leave the enforcement up to the individual states.

For starters not much is really going to change as far as a woman’s right to choose. I mean that in the sense that if you choose to engage in unprotected sex, or refuse to take birth control, nothing will be different. The consequences of your decision will be changed though…. depending on where you live.

I have always spoken of the great political divide in this country, and the forthcoming ruling will only add to it. However, I want you to take a step back, forget about Roe v Wade for a minute here. Over the past 20 years we have seen a sea change in how people/politicians govern. It used to be the school board/city council/mayor/water board were not political…. now it’s a hot bed. Ditto for the DA and Sheriff races. On one side it’s how far left can you go, same holds true for the other side, compromise is a bad word. Here is my point.

Let’s look at a California based example first. In a county like El Dorado (far right) if you kill someone, you will be charged with and likely get the death penalty upon sentencing. In Sacramento (center left) likely you will get life in prison, probably no parole. In San Francisco or LA (bat s**t crazy left) you will at some point be released from prison and be able to kill again. This is because the individual counties have their own leadership and go from there.

Back to the abortion issue.

Say Roe V Wade is overturned leaving the decision up to the states. A state like California has already said they will not have any restrictions on abortion, and I foresee tax breaks being offered to move your abortion clinic out here. In some counties like the aforementioned El Dorado, they likely will make it hard for those clinics to exist, think zoning laws, etc. However, in neighboring Sacramento County they will allow an abortion clinic to open right at the county line to serve the folks who refuse to make adult choices regarding pregnancy.

On the flip side a state like Texas will criminalize abortion as fast as the legal process allows. This additionally means enacting something like the death penalty for people who perform abortions inside its state lines. Some cities like; Houston, Austin and Dallas may try to prevent this from occurring or have shadow clinics but after a couple doctors are sentenced to death this will change. Look for most abortion clinics to move to New Mexico or a friendly, just across state lines, area. The other issue likely to come from this is the election of a governor from the opposition party could well set up an arcane back and forth pendulum swing regarding abortion clinics in their states.

In closing the left is absolutely going bananas over the possibility Roe will be overturned. To the democrats it’s about control, nothing more, nothing less. In many ways they are correct, I think everyone agrees with me, I am pro-choice as well, but that choice is an important one…. life. To translate for the living impaired I am very pro-life, however the choice is yours.

For people like me and many others who practice safe sex, we do not have issues where we need a Planned Parenthood or other abortion clinic. For those who don’t, and there are tons, their choice is likely to get taken away if they live in a red state. In many ways the choice is taken away because you made a bad choice. When you choose to have unprotected sex, especially with someone who is not a “committed partner,” the consequences can be vicious. STDs are one thing, but an unwanted kid is another story. My roommate in college lived this fantasy because he wanted to live dangerously. Well, he got a gal preggo and admits it was his biggest mistake. While I commend them for getting married and keeping the kid, he is living a life of poverty. Actions have consequences…. wait…I mean choices have consequences.

In closing, as far as taking someone’s choices away, please answer me this question. How come Planned Parenthood doesn’t serve the affluent, mostly Anglo parts of Sacramento County? When I looked up locations online, I found they serve an area near Arden way (poor and mostly black) and Fruitridge Road (ditto). If these services are so vital how come people in middle to upper class don’t need or use them? Also why are they only in downtrodden majority minority areas?

I’ll hold the line and wait for your answer. In the meantime,…. I guess that sucks, you got knocked up by a guy who refused to use a condom while you refused to use birth control. Fear not you can always give the baby up for adoption…. or move to California/New York/Illinois or any other whacko left state who will kill your baby on demand. Now serving number 105…. number 105…. please report to exam room B.

The Chief

Democrats Acknowledge Satan as Source of Legalized Abortion

Yep, the truth is finally winning out. The US Supreme Court is going to offer states the right to end the Democrat’s sacred rite of child killing. As a result, the worshippers of Moloch are going all out to keep the sacrament of abortion legal. Oh, for those of you that went to public school or are just ignorant about Western Culture, here is the scoop on Moloch.

Moloch, also spelled Molech, a Canaanite deity associated in biblical sources with the practice of child sacrifice. The name derives from combining the consonants of the Hebrew melech (“king”) with the vowels of boshet (“shame”), the latter often being used in the Old Testament as a variant name for the popular god Baal (“Lord”).
In the Hebrew Bible, Moloch is presented as a foreign deity who was at times illegitimately given a place in Israel’s worship as a result of the syncretistic policies of certain apostate kings. The laws given to Moses by God expressly forbade the Jews to do what was done in Egypt or in Canaan. “You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Moloch, and so profane the name of your God” (Leviticus 18:21). Yet kings such as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:3) and Manasseh (2 Kings 21:6), having been influenced by the Assyrians, are reported to have worshipped Moloch at the hilled site of Topheth, outside the walls of Jerusalem. This site flourished under Manasseh’s son King Amon but was destroyed during the reign of Josiah, the reformer. “And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Moloch” (2 Kings 23:10).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moloch-ancient-god

In times of apostasy some Israelites, apparently in desperation, made their children “go through the fire to Molech” (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5; 2 Kings 23:10; compare 2 Kings 17:31; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 19:5; Jeremiah 32:35 ). It generally is assumed that references like these are to the sacrifices of children in the Valley of Hinnom at a site known as Topheth (“Topheth” probably means “firepit” in Syriac). See Hinnom; Tepheth. Precisely how this was done is unknown. Some contend that the children were thrown into a raging fire. Certain rabbinic writers describe a hollow bronze statute in the form of a human but with the head of an ox. According to the rabbis, children were placed in the structure which was then heated from below. Drums were pounded to drown out the cries of the children.
https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hbd/m/molech.html

One suggested identity for Molech is the Canaanite deity, Ba’al-Hadad or Hadad. Hadad was considered the king of the gods by the ancient Canaanites. Evidence that Moloch can be identified with him comes from the fact that the pagan alters in the valley of Ben-Hinnom where children were sacrificed are also described as altars to Ba’al by the prophet Jeremiah. Furthermore, Assyrian texts state that child sacrifices were made to Adad, the Assyrian equivalent of the Canaanite Hadad. This makes it reasonable to suggest that child sacrifices may have also been made to Hadad and that a cult of child sacrifice may have been related to him.
Moloch and Ba’al-Hadad

Molech represents the most repulsive of acts in God’s sight, the ritual sacrifice of children to a pagan god, which was condemned in the strongest way by the Lord, including punishment by death.
https://www.compellingtruth.org/molech.html

Ancient people sacrificed their children to a false god in the belief that this would result in a better life for them. God calls for those that sacrifice their children to be put to death. Sorry, but like gender, many things in life are binary choices.

Oh, abortion is also condemned in the Bible—especially the New Testament. However, Big Tech is pushing a different point of view so you may have difficulty finding this in your favorite search engine.

I did a search and found generic stuff like “you are fearfully and wonderfully made” or “the child leaped in her womb” but that’s about it. But don’t quit there.

Thankfully I know where to look to find spiritual meat and not baby food.

Exposure, abortion, child sacrifice, and other forms of infanticide more often than not were both legal and respectable in pagan societies from the earliest times. Unwanted children in ancient Rome were abandoned outside the city walls to die from exposure to the elements or from the attacks of wild forging beasts. The Greeks often gave pregnant women heavy doses of herbal or medicinal abortifacients. The Persians developed highly sophisticated surgical curette procedures. Ancient Hindus and Arabs concocted chemical pessaries – abortifacients pushed or pumped directly into the womb through the birth canal. The primitive Canaanites threw their children onto great flaming pyres as a sacrifice to their god Molech. The Polynesians subjected their pregnant women to onerous tortures, their abdomens beaten with large stones or hot coals heaped upon their bodies. The Egyptians disposed of their unwanted children, especially girls, by disemboweling and dismembering them. Their collagen was then ritually harvested for the manufacture of cosmetic creams. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Plato and Aristotle both recommended infanticide and abortion for Eugenic purposes. Juvenal and Chrysostom revealed that many abortions were performed in order to conceal illicit or illegal sexual activity. Soranos argued that some women killed their children out of sheer convenience or self-indulgent vanity. Ambrose and Hippolytus said that some families resorted to these drastic measures for economic reasons. Others, according to Justinian, did so for religious, ideological, or sectarian reasons. But most women, reported Calaetus, simply were coerced by oppressive cultural norms, values, and structures to despise and reject their progeny.
Indeed, “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
From time to time voices were raised against the slaughter of the innocent and helpless. But they were like voices crying in the desert: hauntingly prophetic but scornfully spurned.
It was not until the rapid spread of Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world in the second and third centuries that a consistent and convincing pro-life message began to sound. But when it did, the whole civilized world stopped to listen. It was not long until laws were passed and a cultural consensus was reached to protect both women and children. The church’s pro-life message was arresting.
The reason Christianity commanded such attention and compelled such action was not just that the sanctity of life was a new and novel notion. The pro-life emphasis was provocative because the church affirmed it universally and without dissent, because it was undeniably rooted in Scriptural Revelation, and because it was coupled with complementary action on the part of the faithful.
Affirmation. The wholehearted consensus of the early church was that abortion and infanticide were in fact murder. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. On that, all of the patristics absolutely agreed.
The Didache was a compilation of Apostolic moral teachings that appeared at the end of the first century. Among its many admonitions, it asserted an unwavering reverence for the sanctity of life: “Do not murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant.”
The Epistle of Barnabas was an early second-century theological tract that was highly regarded by the first Christian communities. Like the Didache, it laid down absolute strictures against abortion and infanticide: “You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay a child by abortion. You shall not kill that which has already been generated.”
The second-century apologist Athenagoras in a letter to Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, “We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God…. The fetus in the womb is a living being and therefore the object of God’s care.”
In the third century, Clement of Alexandria asserted that “our whole life can proceed according to God’s perfect plan only if we gain dominion over our desires, practicing continence from the beginning instead of destroying through perverse and pernicious arts human offspring, who are given birth by Divine Providence. Those who use abortifacient medicines to hide their fornication cause not only the outright murder of the fetus, but of the whole human race as well.”
GRAND ILLUSIONS: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood by George Grant pages 209-211

Grand Illusions is available for free at the link. You need to search by title or author in the left hand column to find the book.

The Greek word for sorcery or witchcraft throughout the Bible is pharmakea. That is also the word that is consistently used in ancient literature for abortifacient. There is a Scriptural connection, then, between occultic sorcery and abortion. Considering the backdrop of Baal and Molech worship and their occultic and child sacrifice elements, this connection should not be too terribly surprising.
GRAND ILLUSIONS pg. 392

Let’s look at Revelation 22: 15 per the King James Bible

“For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.”

Liberals really hate this verse. Here’s a breakdown from the original Greek per Strong’s.

“Dogs” is a reference to sodomites or homosexuals.
“Sorcerers” includes people that make drugs that result in abortions and attempt to alter their reality.
“Whoremongers” includes male prostitution or men indulging in unlawful sexual intercourse
“Murderers” unjustified or intentional homicide
“Idolaters” worshipper of an idol, worshipper of Mammon (money), participant in heathen worship or festivals
“whosoever loveth and maketh a lie” people who love to deceiving men, act according to precepts and principles of idolatry, purposely promote untruth

Oh, all the above are banned from Heaven and destined to hell.

Ok, so where’s the Satan part?

Let’s start with this quote from Gavin Newsom. “We are going to fight like hell.”

If Gavin does nothing and Roe is overturned, abortion in California remains unchanged; however, that’s not good enough. Gavin not only wants to make California an abortion travel destination but wants to make infanticide legal to boot. Yep, why stop killing them when they’re born. California is going to implement one of the primary goals of evil bio-ethicist Peter Singer.

Gavin isn’t ready to roll out infanticide for two-year-old’s just yet but anywhere just shy of one year is the immediate goal of current legislation put forward by his keep abortion lethal committee. If you missed it, killing the elderly (euthanasia) is already legal here. Who’s next, maybe the homeless?

Gavin wants to fight like hell because that’s his team. Human sacrifice is a high priority for this man. Government is his “god” and abortion is his sacrament. Plus, he can be a closet racist. He is using abortion and taxpayer money to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor. Which brings us to the next quote.

Planned Parenthood said they are “fighting like hell.”

Planned Parenthood was founded on the principle of eliminating blacks and the mentally defective. It’s founder regularly attended cocktail parties with the folks that helped Hitler eliminate gypsies and Jews—the so called “final solution”. That so many Jews support Planned Parenthood is proof that those who refuse to learn from history get to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Satan worship and paganism are on the rise in our culture while church attendance is way down—per Gavin “nonessential”. Universally, Democrats are promising that all hell will break loose if Roe v Wade gets tossed. Again, this can only be understood when the State (political power) is their god and abortion is their sacrament.

As Rushdoony said, “all law is religious.” When the God of the Bible is kicked out of the public square and public policy then some other god will take its place. All false gods are demon worship and thus end up being Satan worship via counterfeit religions. All men are religious, the thought of a godless society is not Utopia or some stupid John Lenin song but hell on earth.

This culture of death puts our nation and its people under the condemnation of God.

Dear Church, God is coming soon but not to take us to Heaven but coming in judgement and vengeance. The George Grant quote above is an indictment of just how far we have fallen.

How Reversing Roe v Wade Could Backfire

With Texas, Mississippi, and other states enacting Pro-Life legislation and the US Supreme Court seeming to signal the reversal of Roe v Wade—or at least its limitation—many on our side are rejoicing that Roe may soon go; however, I have a bad feeling about such a move. I wish to expand this idea. What follows is in no particular order and I reserve the right to add to my list of reasons later but here goes …

At our nation’s founding, law was based on a Christian understanding of law and morality. Yes, it was not perfect, but faith in Christ and the Bible was in large part the basis of the Western Worldview or Western Civilization. Now however, people have rejected the Bible as authoritative. Without biblical authority, men no longer ask themselves How Should We then Live?

People in our culture have set themselves up as their own gods and decide what’s right or wrong based on their own whims and relativistic thinking. There are no absolutes. How many times have you heard the lie, “You have your truth and I have mine”? Sorry folks but Truth is not negotiable, it is absolute and remains true whether I acknowledge it as so or not.

Facts are a similar type of Truth claim. The “fake news” mantra is not really accurate. Facts—in context—are not negotiable in and of themselves, but their meaning can be interpreted in different ways. Facts are a type of evidence that can be cited as building blocks of a larger truth claim. The causality of various facts is a large part of the “fake news” phenomenon. Ignoring context, relationships (especially cause and effect), and logical conclusions all contribute to the divide in public discourse in our nation and beyond. Without the ability to agree on a set of facts, we have no basis to communicate ideas with each other, thus we talk past each other and not to each other. This inability to communicate is polarizing and prevents dialogue. In part, this a result of not having a shared worldview.

A corollary of the above discussion is what is called the “law of unintended consequences”. We can deliberate whether a particular instance of the law of unintended consequences is actually known or can be reasoned—although that is usually the case—but such can be seen, especially in the areas of government and law. A change is not really the end point but the beginning of a new series of steps that have a logical conclusion that is almost always denied by those implementing the change.

This leads me to the US Supreme Court and abortion. I would like them to end abortion but how they do it is the most important question that nobody seems to be asking. Folks, please hear me on this, how they do it is either going to be a boon to freedom for people in our country or a device to further enslave us.

Roe was written by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun.

This was Blackmun’s first majority opinion for the US Supreme Court. Much of Roe is steeped in quasi-scientific and medical language. Concepts like “trimester” were never a part of arguments for or against the cases that became Roe. Instead, Blackmun inserted the idea of a trimester into the Court’s reasoning. Likewise, “the health of the mother”. Blackmun did not define “health of the mother” but the court did in Doe v Bolton which was released the same day. The practical result of both cases legalized unlimited abortion thru all nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states.

I know that science has advanced much since 1973 but making science the arbiter of law or morality is an insufficient basis to overturn Roe. It sets the precedent that Dr. Fauci or his ilk can decide what is right now or at any time in the future. If science changes then law or morality can change—bad idea.

If Roe is overturned, then in theory, each state has its own abortion law. While this might be a strictly Constitutional arrangement, morally, it is an untenable place for the law. This would put us back into an arrangement where one state was slave owning and another was not. Either human beings have value and deserve legal protection, or they do not. To have both positions and treat them as equally valid is wrong. Such a view is morally and legally untenable.

This brings us to a finding that the Constitution actually has a place for finding a right to life. While I think this is ultimately where the Court should end-up, this view has its own pitfalls as well. If the Constitution contains a right to life, then doesn’t government have a mandate to ensure that life is protected at all costs? Thus, if government decides that we all need Covid shots, universal healthcare, or must prevent global warming then we must do it because the Constitution demands it. Please note that this sets government above the Constitution but at the cost of individual liberty.

If the Court leaves this up to individuals, then aren’t we just codifying the idea that everyone does what is right in their own minds? Isn’t this largely the status quo now, just phrased a different way?

How do you craft a Constitutional interpretation that protects life, ensures individual liberty, and is morally right? In the relativistic times that we live in, how do you do it in a way that cannot be corrupted later?

Dismantling Roe is not enough but what will we put in its place? Simply chipping away at it or undoing it is a wholly insufficient solution. Life is not the ultimate value, God’s Law is. In a culture that refuses to honor God what will people do if the Court finds a way to affirm His teaching?