No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right

On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalized the procedure of abortion for any reason before “fetal viability,” which is loosely defined.

The Court stipulated that abortion must be permitted for “health reasons” of the woman—up until birth. Yet the Court’s broad definition of “health reasons” essentially allowed for any reason and legalized abortion on demand.

The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.

Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.

Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”

In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being.

The Court also ignored legal jurisprudence and historical context regarding the Fourteenth Amendment. State laws prohibited abortion prior to the Fourteenth Amendment’s adoption in 1868—contrary to Blackmun’s demonstrably false claims.

Constitutional scholar and Yale law professor John Hart Ely wrote:

What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure… It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

The Court also created another precedent by striking down state laws as illegal which had existed in all 50 states for roughly 100 years. These state laws were enacted democratically — decided by voters either through ballot initiatives or elected state legislatures. The Court overruled the rightful authority of the people in each of these states—and the other two branches of government did nothing in response.

Against the will of the people, and in defiance of the Constitution, the Court created policy not based on the Constitution.

Yet the Supreme Court is not the ultimate legal authority in America. The Court does not have the final word on legal matters; American citizens do. The Founders created separation of powers for a reason — Congress can overrule the Supreme Court as well as the president; states can overrule Congress. Congress and state legislatures determine policy as elected branches of government—elected by the people. And the people (in 1973 and 2015) overwhelmingly support significant restrictions on abortion.

By legalizing abortion, the Court legalized the leading cause of murder and human death in America. Since 1973, more than 56 million human beings have been “legally” killed.

The Court in Roe usurped the authority of the people and made murder, illegal according to the Constitution, legal. The Court not only broke the law, but legalized others breaking it as well.

This column was first published on

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: When These Kids Were Asked About Abortion, They Gave Astonishing Answers

The group Online for Life released a video which they hope will help wake America up to the evil of abortion. They rely on the “mouths of babes” to deliver the message.

The organization’s Deliver Us From Abortion project notes that, over the past 40 years, 56 million Americans have died due to abortion. That is an average of 1.2 million per year, or one child every 26 seconds.

Americans are closely divided on their views about abortion; however, a Gallup poll published last month found, for the first time in 7 years, more identify as “pro-choice” than “pro-life” (50 to 44 percent).

Despite these disheartening numbers for those who support the sanctity of human life, not all recent news has been bad. The Associated Press reported earlier this month that the abortion rate has declined nationwide. The decrease is seen not only in states that have restricted the practice through legislation requiring waiting periods, informed consent, parental notification, and bans on late-term abortion, but also in those states that have no restrictions. The survey found that abortions have dropped 12 percent since 2010.

Americans United for Life’s president, Charmaine Yoest, believes the drop reflects changing attitudes among pregnant women. “There’s an entire generation of women who saw a sonogram as their first baby picture,” she said. “There’s an increased awareness of the humanity of the baby before it is born.”

In the Deliver Us From Abortion project’s video, the organization asked some young children (probably between the ages of 5 and 12) what they thought about babies, including those still in the womb.

After some fun introductory banter, the interviewers asked the young boys and girls a series of questions, including, “Would you ever hurt your baby? Why not? What if you were too busy to take care of your baby? Would you ever kill your baby? What if the baby were still in mommy’s tummy, would it be okay then? What if you found out parents were killing their babies? If you knew parents were killing their babies, would you save them if you could?”

Their common sense responses bolstered Jesus’ exhortation to “become like children,” and made his instructions to his disciples to “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven” ring true.

President Ronald Reagan recognized that the practice of abortion was not consistent with the nation’s founding beliefs contained in the Declaration of Independence. He issued a proclamation to highlight the problem; in it, he followed the same reasoning President Abraham Lincoln used when he pointed out the Supreme Court’s error of not recognizing the personhood of Americans of African descent in the Dred Scott case.

Reagan stated, “America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived from centuries of experiments in self-government.” “Our gift is twofold,” he continued, “the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given, unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure those rights and to defend them against every challenge through the generations.”

He continued, noting that one of those inalienable rights, “as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the right to life.” He highlighted the “tragic and unspeakable results” since the decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 – the loss of tens of millions of unborn lives. The decision, the president wrote, thus cheapened the nation’s respect for human life.

Based on these observations, the proclamation closed: “I, Ronald Reagan…do hereby proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death.” Then, borrowing directly from the Emancipation Proclamation, he wrote, “‘Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.’”

h/t: IJReview

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Intolerance In Matthew Shepherd’s Name: How Lies Become Laws

bookofmatt Intolerance in Matthew Shepherd’s Name: How Lies Become Laws

It will be fascinating to see how people react to a new book by an award-winning gay journalist exposing the truth about the 1998 death of homosexual Matthew Shepherd.

Just as a backdrop of lies brought us legalized abortion in 1973 through Roe v. Wade, it now appears that more lies were used to help homosexual activists kick the bullying industry into hyper-drive via the tragic death of Matthew Shepherd.

Facts about the Shepherd case were wrongfully reported and widely accepted as truth.

Much has been accomplished for leftists and homosexual activists in the name of tolerance, including the implementation of anti-bullying curriculums in public schools, most of which discriminate against Christians. Songs have been written and dedicated to Matthew Shepherd by Elton John, Melissa Etheridge, Lady Gaga, and others. Films have been made about his death, and a dedication play called “The Laramie Project” has been performed over 2,000 times worldwide.

In 2009, President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a federal law against gay hate crimes that was named after Matthew Shepherd. The new details of the Shepherd case won’t sit well with our pro-homosexual government.

What really happened?

Matthew Shepherd accepted a ride from two men, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson, in October 1998. They pistol-whipped him, robbed him, tied him to a fence, and left. The incident became a famous ‘hate’ crime because the motives were made up by opportunistic activists, and the media ran with the ‘vicious homophobes’ narrative even before Shepherd died!

This new bombshell book by Stephen Jimenez, The Book of Matt, was written after he personally interviewed hundreds of people (including the two murderers), concluding that the case had more to do with drugs than Shepherd’s sexuality.

It turns out Shepard was a regular crystal meth user and a meth dealer; and his killer, McKinney, had been on a meth bender. Inconvenient facts were ignored, and America’s most famous hate crime was not a hate crime after all.

Gay journalist Aaron Hicklin asked this question in his article in The Advocate:

And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had [homosexual] sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?

Someone recently said, “Only a weak cause which is not confident of its own righteousness needs to lie to prove its point.” What difference does it make today when the damage has already been done in the courts of public opinion?

This goes beyond lies to advancing an aggressive agenda.

Let’s recall a shocking, disturbing murder committed by homosexuals – an actual hate crime few have heard about.

A complicit national media fanned the flames of false homophobia in the Shepherd case. The following is an excerpt from a chapter entitled, “Normalizing Homosexuality” in the book – ERADICATE: BLOTTING OUT GOD IN AMERICA.

In Prairie Grove, Arkansas, thirteen-year-old Jesse (Yates) Dirkhising was killed by two homosexual men [in 1999]. Jesse was bound and drugged, tortured, raped, and he died due to a combination of the drugs and the position in which he was tied down. The Washington Times was the only national media outlet to report the story at first.

…the Matthew Shepard case received massive, ongoing national media atten­tion because Shepard, the victim, was a homosexual. While both victims died as the result of assaults by two men, Dirkhising was a minor while Shepard was an adult. No protections have been issued or written on behalf of minors, but severe hate crimes legislations have been passed and implemented to protect homosexuals. Gays (it’s an unwritten rule) cannot be portrayed as villains by the media even if they were convicted of rape, torture, and murder.

The Washington Times story was headlined, “Media tune out torture death of Arkansas boy.” Tim Graham, director of media studies at the Media Research Center said that no one in the media wants to be on the wrong side of the issue by saying anything negative about homo­sexuals. The LexisNexis Group provides computer-assisted research services and revealed a drastic contrast in the two cases in a media search.

One month after each murder, there were 3,007 stories about Matthew Shepard’s death compared with only forty-six stories about Jesse Dirkhising’s death.

The deception and duplicity of this double standard is glaring.

How should Christians respond when some claim we’re being hateful, bigoted, or intolerant by simply talking about our faith? Pray for them because for those who have not placed their faith in the only Truth, Jesus Christ, this life is all there is.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 features a laundry list of sins describing those who will not inherit God’s kingdom. We must all appear before a holy, all-powerful God on Judgment Day; and we should be most concerned with our own standing with God before looking at others.

We also need to avoid extremes. One extreme is the ‘God hates fags’ crowd, who treat homosexual behavior as the unforgivable sin. It is not. The other extreme is being silent, accepting or even approving of the destructive lifestyle of homosexuality mainly because we  fear opposition. Don’t be intimidated.

Bullying is bullying, no matter who is doing it! Hey activists: name calling and stereotyping people that stand for what they believe is exactly what you don’t want done to you. The right of free speech should work both ways.

Hate crime and bullying propaganda has been used to advance their agenda temporarily, but God will have the final say.


Follow @Fiorazo on Twitter


Photo credit:


Obama Disregards High Court On Affirmative Action

SupremeCourt5833 300x197 Obama disregards high court on affirmative action

A U.S. Supreme Court decision earlier this year proved a win for those who believe that college admission should be based on merit, not skin color. In a 7-1 ruling, justices ruled that universities must make sure “no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity” before they issue acceptance letters to minorities for the sake of heterogeneity.

In typical fiat fashion, the Obama administration recently sent a letter to schools across the nation effectively telling them to ignore that ruling, even offering assistance in subverting it.

According to the letter’s authors, diversity is important because it helps “prepare students to succeed in our increasingly diverse nation.”

While focusing only on the fact that justices saw the benefit of diverse college environments, the directive further encouraged schools to maintain the same admissions policies they had in place prior to the court decision.

Jocelyn Samuels of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division explained that colleges could run afoul of the ruling by doing so, noting that her agency is dedicated to making sure they find any applicable loopholes.

“I would hope that colleges and universities would undertake these programs in carefully structured ways that would avoid legal challenge,” she noted, “and we certainly are available to help them do that.”

This administration has a documented history of flouting the law when it is politically expedient; and the instructions included in this recent letter perfectly illustrate that tendency. Furthermore, the Justice Department is perpetuating a failed ideological holdover from generations past: the notion that diversity for diversity’s sake is a good thing.

Placing more emphasis on pigmentation than qualification is not only an injustice to the students who rightfully deserved a spot; it does a real disservice to those artificially propped up because of their race. Through affirmative action, minorities learn that they cannot achieve anything without government intervention. At the same time, such policies can stoke the already simmering embers of racial hostility in America.

It is amazing to behold the dichotomous lens through which the left views Supreme Court decisions. Still touting a 40-year-old ruling as license to slaughter millions of unborn humans, modern progressives consider Roe V. Wade a holy sacrament. When the same court issues a decision about which they disagree, as with affirmative action or gun rights, the decree is seen as merely an obstacle to overcome.

Learn more about the author of this article here.

Abortionist Curtis Boyd: “Am I Killing? Yes, I Am. I Know That.”

Baby 2 SC Abortionist Curtis Boyd: “Am I Killing? Yes, I Am. I Know That.”

At age 76, Curtis Boyd, infamous late-term abortionist, has performed thousands of abortions on viable babies. Ironically, Boyd was raised in a Christian home in Texas, and later in life became an ordained Baptist minister. Then, with complete disregard to God’s commandments, Boyd left the church and opened up a back alley abortion clinic in Athens, Texas.

Before Roe V. Wade in 1973, the Supreme Court Decision that decriminalized abortion in the United States, Boyd was aborting children by the hundreds. Though illegal, Boyd felt that performing abortions was more important than abiding by the law of the land. When word got out about his chop shop, he was forced out of Athens and reopened in Dallas, where he continued to rally support for “abortion rights”.

Boyd says, “In those days, the big fear was someone would either file charges against me or I would have some major complication or patient death. I knew that every patient I saw had the potential to not only take my medical license, but to put me in prison.”

After Roe v. Wade passed, Boyd scurried to open the very first abortion clinic, Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center in Texas, and then immediately found a way to open its sister abortion clinic, Southwestern Women’s Options, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Boyd was a founding member of the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion clinics that has become infamous for having filthy conditions, botched abortions and abortion deaths, among many other violations.

 Read More at Life News . By Ashley Baldwin.

Photo Credit: lunar caustic (Creative Commons)