I’m sharing a Pro-Life message I pray my FELLOW OKLAHOMA
voters act on to protect the sanctity of life of UNBORN Children from those who
promote their death in the misguided view a woman’s Rights over her own body is
more valuable than the God-Given life housed in a woman’s body.
(Full Disclosure:After adding your name to email
legislators, there is a redirect to a webpage asking for support for the cause
of Students for Life Action. Personally, I chose not to donate for
financial reasons, NEVERTHELESS it is a worthy cause.)
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED.
PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Political experts say that some legislators, including Republicans,
may be on the verge of caving to the abortion lobby and adding loopholes &
exceptions for Planned Parenthood into Oklahoma's abortion prevention laws.
This would be a tragedy, as Oklahoma has some of the strongest abortion laws in
America...thanks to the efforts of pro-lifers like you.
If legislators cave to Planned Parenthood, it would be a tremendous victory for
the abortion industry in Oklahoma, as they would once again be able to operate
in the state and end the lives of innocent babies.
Many of these legislators are being advised to "compromise" with the
abortion lobby in order to appear more "moderate."
But it is never worthwhile for a politician to sacrifice the lives of
innocent preborn babies to further his or her political career.
The good news is you have the power to stop the Oklahoma
legislature from taking this action.
Your emails to your legislators right now will
show them that the pro-life movement in Oklahoma will defend our pro-life law
with everything that we have.
But with the legislative session underway, there is not much time.
I need you to act now.
Please email your legislators & demand that they protect Oklahoma's
current pro-life law, standing strong against Planned Parenthood's attempts to
create exceptions and loopholes.
I am so proud that Oklahoma has some of the strongest
pro-life laws in the entire country, and I want to keep it that way.
But some Republican politicians have become weak-kneed on the life issue and
are currently scrambling to gut pro-life laws in order to appease the abortion
lobby.
Thankfully, it is not too late to take action. But time is running out.
The legislative session is underway, and Planned Parenthood will certainly be
lobbying Republican leadership to push this through as quickly as possible to
minimize opposition.
That's why I need you to email your legislators now and urge them keep
Oklahoma's pro-life laws in place, and say NO to those who want to insert
exceptions at the behest of Planned Parenthood.
Kristan Hawkins
President, Students for Life Action
P.S. -- If the rumors are true, Republican legislators are about to cave to
Planned Parenthood and gut Oklahoma's pro-life laws.
This would involve adding loopholes and exceptions that would allow Planned
Parenthood and other abortion providers to operate once again in Oklahoma.
Time is running out -- I need you to email your legislators right now and
urge them not to work with Planned Parenthood on weakening Oklahoma's pro-life
laws by adding exceptions.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Threatens Roe v. Wade
By Justin O. Smith
Sent 12/3/2021 11:14 AM
Murdering the Unborn Child is a practice as old as mankind
itself, but that doesn't make it a moral practice or something acceptable with
any real justification. The Democratic Party's century long advocacy and
support for Baby-Murder doesn't make it more palatable, since their reasons
have long been based on premises beyond immoral, as they have yet to be able to
acknowledge that an embryo is a living being, while they also have pulled a
non-existent "right to abortion" from thin air, largely
due to a January 22nd 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade.
For all familiar with Christianity, in Jeremiah 1:5, God
tells us all:
"Before I formed thee in
the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I
sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet to the nations."
On December 1st 2021, America witnessed arguments between
the pro-death abortionists and the pro-life defenders of the Unborn Child
unfold before the Supreme Court and a fight between evil and good, in the
[JRH] Dobbs
v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case initiated in the
wake of a Mississippi law that bans all abortions after fifteen weeks of
pregnancy. It's a case that threatens the continuation of Roe v. Wade as
"settled law", since a good bit of the conversation questioned the
notion of stare decisis or precedent. Several cases of the Court reversing
itself were scrutinized by attorneys and Justices alike, and the Court appears
to be preparing to make a major change in its abortion jurisprudence, after
several hours of closing arguments from the State of Mississippi and the Biden
regime.
[Blog Editor: More Pro-Life slanted info on Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Organization:
One should note at this point, as some background
information on Planned Parenthood, that during the 1920s, Margaret Sanger
embraced eugenics as a nurse associated with the Industrial Workers
of the World and [JRH] Emma
Goldman, who was one of the founders of the American Communist
Party and a mentor to [JRH] Roger
Baldwin, the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union. Sanger
went on to found the [JRH] American
Birth Control League in 1925, which eventually became Planned Parenthood
[Blog Editor: Interesting note – The link I associated here has the “American
Birth Control League” founded in 1921. Yet in some quick comparisons I also saw
it founded in 1919 & 1923. Evidently there seems to be some uncertainty on
a founding date.]; she was also a devout racist who created the Negro
Project in 1939 with a mission to sterilize unsuspecting black women and those
she viewed as undesirables of society. In Sanger's own words, "Colored
people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."
Due to the absence of any right to abortion in the U.S.
Constitution and the many false assumptions and arbitrary reasoning used by the
Court to establish said "right", in all subsequent challenges that
came before the Court over the decades, attorneys had to argue precedent since
nothing exists in the actual body of the Constitution or any original
understanding of it that suggested any right to an abortion. And unlike all
other of our country's healthcare questions, abortion has been removed, by and
large, from any real due process of "the law" being applied under any
existing U.S. code, essentially amounting to a construct of nine Supreme
Court Justices that circumvented the will of the people in fifty states and the
principles of our Founders.
If we're going to debate precedents, shouldn't we be
reviewing our previous two centuries, when virtually every single state had
laws banning all abortions?
A majority
of America's states had laws that criminalized abortion, by 1858.
By the time the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, approximately
three-quarters of our states had such statutes, and by 1883, every single state
had laws that banned abortion. And regardless of how one interprets the 14th
Amendment, while it may not protect the UnBorn Child from being aborted, it
also most certainly doesn't state that any woman has any right to murder her
UnBorn Child in the womb.
When Elizabeth Prelogar, U.S. Solicitor General, fell back
on the 14th Amendment argument, and as reported by Katie Pavlich at Townhall,
Justice Clarence Thomas, normally one of the more quiet and reserved
Justices, made the following observations and ended with a question, saying:
"If we are talking about
the 2nd Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking
about the 4th Amendment, I know what we're talking about, because it's written.
It's there. What specifically is right here [in the 14th Amendment] that we're
talking about?"
When something isn't specifically addressed by the
Constitution, it must be left to the States, the people, to decide. And by the
early 1970s, they were holding referendum elections and deciding, by in large,
in favor of life which sparked the sort of judicial activism that led to Roe v.
Wade and the subsequent defense of its lawless nature as "settled
law".
Nine Black Robes ruling that an embryo isn't a
"person" doesn't make it so, unless one is a blathering idiot and
a science denier, since life begins at conception. The measure of that UnBorn
Child's viability outside the womb is equally as capricious and arbitrary as
the Court's ruling that abortion is a right, especially after a 21
week old infant was helped to survive outside the womb last year,
by remarkable advances in modern medicine. Life is life, and a life so innocent
should be protected above all else.
And neither can anyone reasonably view the arguments of
Julie Rikelman, attorney for the Center for Reproduction Rights, as any sound
basis for going forward with Baby Murder as America's status quo, as she
stated:
"Two generations have now
relied on this right. And one out of every four women makes the decision to end
a pregnancy."
So what is this? The "Everybody is doing it, so it must
be right" perspective?
Rikelman also argued that Mississippi's case was very
similar to cases that have been previously rejected, stating Casey as her
proof, and this prompted Justice Samuel Alito, a Conservative, to school the
pro-death legal team by way of a question he posed to Elizabeth Prelogar,
the U.S. Solicitor General, asking:
"Is it your argument that a
case can never be overruled simply because it was egregiously wrong?”
Prelogar replied:
"I think that, at the very
least, the state would have to come forward with some kind of materially
changed circumstance or some kind of materially new argument, and Mississippi
hasn't done so in this case."
Shredding her argument, Alito then asked:
"So suppose Plessy v.
Ferguson (an 1896 decision that affirmed the constitutionality of racial
segregation laws) was reargued in 1897, so nothing had changed. Would it not
be sufficient to say that was an egregiously wrong decision on the day it was
handed down and now it should be overruled?"
Scott Stewart, Mississippi's Solicitor General, told the
Court that the legality of abortion was still an unsettled matter in America,
forty-eight years after Roe. The primary premise he asserted was that matters
of this importance affecting all Americans, in one way or another, must be
settled by democratically elected state legislatures and the people with the
most at stake, rather than the Court.
"Abortion is fundamentally
different from any right this Court has ever endorsed. No other right involves,
as abortion does, 'the purposeful termination of a potential life' ... Roe
broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a
right that has no basis in the Constitution."
Shortly after Roe was delivered by the Court, John Hart Ely,
a supporter of legalized abortion and a Harvard professor, wrote:
"Roe is bad ... because it
is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to
be."
Much of the precedence for our legal system emanates from
English Common Law, and as such, one would be remiss if one didn't mention that
many early U.S. lawyers such as Louis Brandeis and Sam Warren relied heavily on
English Common Law in 1890, when they wrote the Right to Privacy. They revealed
that William Blackstone, an English legal scholar whose words shaped our
Declaration of Independence, declared specific rights for the UnBorn Child,
writing:
"Qui in utero, est pro jam
nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is
held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit." (from
page 105 of Black's Law Dictionary) [Blog Editor: Black’s Law has
gone through many editions since the original. Here’s a LINK
to a PDF of the 6th Edition with a 1990 copyright. Here’s a link
which cites the Latin and English used by Justin.]
An amicus
brief filed with the Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health
Organization by Dr. Monique Chireau Wubbenhorst, an obstetrician,
Dr. Colleen Malloy, a neonatologist, and Dr. Grazie Pozo Christie, a diagnostic
radiologist, detail how far science has advanced in dealing with pregnancies, revealing
that viability now stands at 21 weeks of gestation, and also noting at 12
weeks, the little human in the womb can feel "immediate and unreflective
pain". They further explain that the science now makes it possible to
intervene and treat UnBorn Children in utero as early as 15 weeks gestation,
and even at such an early stage, the human form of the child in the womb is
undeniable.
The three female physicians suggest that since Casey doesn't
account for the very human aspects of the UnBorn Child and the pro-death camp
is so reliant on stare decisis where Casey is concerned, the Conservative
majority has the blueprints before it to reject viability as the primary
motivating factor, as they consider their ruling on Dobbs. Only five
Justices are needed to find that science and facts trump stare decisis, and the
Supreme Court cannot hope to ever again hold any semblance of institutional
integrity, if it persists in its denial of the humanity of the UnBorn
Child.
During his testimony on May 17th 2012, Dr. Anthony Levatino
told the House Judiciary Committee reviewing the District of Columbia
Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (H.R. 3803) about saving a woman's
life by "terminating her pregnancy" through a Cesarean section, that
saved her life and allowed her and her baby to thrive afterwards. He noted that
during his time at Albany Medical Center, he performed hundreds of similar
procedures, and in all those cases, he didn't have to kill one single UnBorn
Child. (Dr. Levatino retells his story here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BaHQTdjo7Y.)
This show is a re-air of a program
we did earlier this year with Dr. Anthony Levatino. Dr. Levatino performed over
1000 abortions before having a personal epiphany. In this interview he shares
his journey and about the reality of what abortion is. Also joined in this
interview is Ruth Shaw, the director of the National Campus Life Coalition.]
The Leftist pro-death camp can tout Baby-Murder as being
in the interest of women's health all they wish, but the facts and their own
contradictions belie their assertions. Most pro-abortion state laws, such
as one finds in New York and Virginia, allow non-physicians to perform
abortions, as they dismiss research that reveals the physical and psychological
damage women incur from abortions. They refuse to inform women about the risks
associated with an abortion, and they do not counsel them on the option of
adoption. These death cultists cloak their true agenda in the euphemism of
"choice".
The Baby-Murderers and the advocates of the Democratic
Party's Death Cult are hoping that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett
Kavanaugh are liberal enough to betray traditional America once more and vote
with Leftist Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Steven Breyer to keep
America's fundamental transformation on track, especially since Roberts has
difficulty in doing anything that moves America too fast, even when the best
path right in front of him is the most righteous path. But, it's also worth
recalling Roberts once wrote that, "We cannot embrace a narrow
ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right", in
connection to the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission.
Roe's Constitutional basis is already being questioned by
several Justices who take exception with the all-encompassing privacy penumbra
seen in Roe. Kavanaugh, ever ready to follow wherever Roberts goes, is also on
the record in Ramos v. Louisiana (2020) that any precedent
"grievously or egregiously wrong" must not be maintained by the
Court.
In April 2020, as he agreed with the Court's majority
ruling, Kavanaugh
wrote:
"The doctrine of stare
decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule
erroneous precedents."
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only Justice who has made no
secret about his conviction that both Roe v. Wade and Casey
should be overturned. It remains to be seen how many of his colleagues will
join him in his honorable and righteous stand.
Most of America would welcome the reversal of the
pro-abortion 1973 Supreme Court ruling that arbitrarily passed out a
"right" to abortion for all women that wasn't under its authority to
grant, but the Far Left in the shadows of the halls of Planned Parenthood and
the Democratic Party Communists are already crying bloody-murder from the steps
of the Supreme Court over their perception of an attack on their cherished
"long standing" legal precedent. However, they are quick to dismiss
the two centuries of pro-life attitudes in America prior to Roe v. Wade,
and since 1973, they have influenced an era in which over sixty-two million
Baby-Murders (abortions) were rationalized and sanctioned through Leftist,
activist courts and under a cloak of protection of "the law."
Life is sacred and begins at conception, therefore the
ethical question cannot logically reconcile the evil of an abortion of an
"unwanted" pregnancy with the Hippocratic Oath of medical doctors or,
more importantly, God's Law. And yet, many who call themselves
"pro-choice" oppose proposed rules that would show a woman an
ultrasound of her UnBorn Child before a planned abortion; they oppose a 48 hour
waiting period for this procedure. These pro-death advocates do not want
parents of an underage girl notified before an abortion, and they argue that an
embryo is not a person. Rather than pro-choice, these evil folks are pro-death.
This is the issue nationwide. Far too many Americans are not
willing to acknowledge that sex between a man and a woman is a sacred matter
ordained by God. They are not willing to admit that the product of such
unions -- a little vulnerable live baby -- cannot and must not be taken away on
a whim, due to the inconvenience it may cause them.
It is accurate to state that a newly created human being
is human because it has its own very specific and unique DNA. Life begins at
conception and any action that ends a human life is indisputably a homicide,
no matter how funny, obtuse or disingenuous one attempts to be on the topic. UnBorn
Children are not property or parasites to be discarded at will.
By Justin O. Smith
___________________________
Edited by John R. Houk
Embedded source links are by Justin Smith except by the
indication “JRH.” Bold text indicates Editorials agreement. Text
embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
My good friend Justin Smith alerted me to this Pro-Life post
by Katherine Blakeman. Blakeman’s title of “Pray for Joe Biden” is quite
generous since the Biden/Harris (or is it really Harris/Biden)
Dem-Marxist Party ticket is overwhelmingly pro-kill-the-baby – for sure – before birth
and many Dems are okay with pro-kill-the-baby just after birth.
However, even though there are Dems feigning a Christian faith, the Holy Bible
does call for prayer for political leaders.
JRH 10/13/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit,
check
[Blog Editor: A Hat Tip intro from Justin Smith via
Facebook Messenger on 10/12/20:]
This is the most outstanding article I have read in a long
time from an extraordinary conservative lady and a true American patriot,
Katherine Blakeman. I think You will have a fine appreciation for it. I would
have posted it, but FB handed me another 30 day ban, four days ago.
Joe Biden is deeply confused. As we approach the election,
he needs prayer. It’s not just that he is gaffe-prone or that he exhibits
mental decline during his infrequent softball interviews.
His campaign told him he is leading a battle for the soul of
the nation. From the perspective of a Roman Catholic Christian, this motto
could not be less fitting. Biden’s campaign
motto appeals to the religious and spiritual realm by painting Joe Biden as a
kind of pseudo-religious savior for our nation’s allegedly sullied soul.
To reference the soul is to appeal to a realm that
transcends politics and the chaos of the earthly realm. Biden’s campaign motto
places upon him a burden no human being can bear alone without God’s grace. A
mere human cannot produce peace in or restore a single soul, let alone that of
the entire nation, without God’s assistance. But how could the Divine Author of
Psalm 139 [Blog Editor: Take a gander at the Amplified Bible, Classic Edition of Psalm 139] get behind Biden’s
agenda?
True peace ultimately comes from God. When a politician
rejects God’s truth, and instead attempts to usher in a secular utopia made in
the Marxist left’s image, allegedly based on “science” that agrees with them,
lots of things may result, but liberty, unity, hope, peace, and the truth will
not be among them.
So how did the left come up with this motto? And why is Joe
Biden better for this role than President Trump? Joe Biden is a very nice guy
who will end racism and hate in America, and
Donald Trump is a big meanie, they claim. So clearly, Joe Biden is better
qualified to safeguard and redeem our nation’s soul than President Trump.
It’s not very nice to call the president of the United
States a “clown,” but well beyond this uncharitable remark, Joe Biden and his
running mate Kamala Harris espouse policies and priorities produced by a
culture of death, the most alarming of which is unfettered abortion-on-demand
to a degree we have never seen before.
President Trump, on the other hand, is fighting for our
nation, and for the future of our nation, unborn children. In his first term,
he has kept most of his campaign promises such as: appointing constitutionalist
judges and justices; growing the economy; record low minority unemployment;
facilitating historic peace deals in the Middle East; and protecting unborn
children.
The left has accused President Trump of being some kind of
cult leader, but President Trump is not now, nor has he ever, presented himself
as a pseudo-religious savior. The promises he makes genuinely pertain
to temporal affairs.
Remember, it is Biden, not Trump, who claims he is called to
save our nation’s soul.
Soul in Latin is “anima.” The soul is the breath, the
animating or life-giving principle of a person—at every stage of human
development. So, if we take the analogy behind Biden’s campaign motto a step
further, we could say that the nation is a unified body, and each individual
person is a cell in this body.
Babies before birth—literally and figuratively—are the
pluripotential embryos of our nation. Abortion dismembers and poisons the
nation’s most defenseless human beings when their only “crime” is the hope and
potential they possess. This is the opposite of what a healthy soul
does.
A politician cannot unify the nation or heal her soul by
unleashing the abortion industry and abortion-on-demand like it never has been
before. Nor will putting abortion, the greatest killer of African Americans, on
steroids end the racial division. That would be like treating a person
suffering from cancer by targeting her healthy cells with radiation and chemo.
It is also strange that Joe Biden wants to make history by
selecting our nation’s first female vice president, without any regard for the
little girls who would be killed by unconditional, taxpayer-funded, sex-selective abortions in Joe
Biden and Kamala Harris’s abortion-crazed America.
These little girls will not even have a chance to take their first breath, let
alone make history.
Biden and Harris are a horrifyingly pro-death
pair of politicians, and they are champing at the bit to undo President Trump’s
pro-life policies. They certainly make Planned Parenthood’s racist, eugenicist
founder Margaret Sanger proud.
Biden is headed down the wrong path. If the poor soul wins
the election this November, he will be under tremendous pressure from the left
to keep his harmful promises. Instead of restoring civility, Biden’s plans will
further cement the most barbaric form of discrimination that exists in our
country, and according to the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic Church Biden
claims as his own, imperil his own soul.
We should pray for him and for anyone who pridefully and
mistakenly considers himself the author of creation or the prince of peace.
That job has already been taken.
Katherine Blakeman is a former Capitol Hill and nonprofit
communications director.
Breaking
Christian News is promoting a Pro-Life movie that
will be available on various digital video formats available for viewing
October 2 on TV, PC, Smart Phone, etc. Is an unborn child a person to be
murdered or a biological appendage to discarded? LOOK FOR THE MOVIE! Hopefully
President Trump nominates a Justicethat
addresses personhood.
JRH 9/26/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit,
check
Mark your calendars for October 2nd as we release this
highly acclaimed pro-life movie "The Order of Rights" on
various digital platforms.
Featuring evangelist Dr. Alveda King staring herself as a cameo
role.
This film addresses the rights of the unborn as well as the
rights of the father's voice. We are praying for a return to America's founding
principles and to the God that inspired them. To view our trailer and
sign the petition to defund planned parenthood, visit our website here.
[Blog Editor: The movie promotional website (https://orderofrightsmovie.com/) has
release info, a trailer (posted below) and a small descriptive paragraph followed
by a DEFUND Planned Parenthood petition which follows this sentence.]
The Order of Rights is a pro-life film. The story centers
around Emma Stein, a pregnant single girl who has been advised by her mother to
have an abortion. Despite the objection of the child’s father, Ethan Carpenter,
and his promise to help her, she decides to go ahead with the procedure. When
Ethan and his family file a lawsuit on behalf of the child’s right to life, the
drama escalates as Emma’s mother, Kerri, contacts a friend in the Associated
Press. Before long, the case is mired in media frenzy. The court has to decide
whether the child in Emma’s womb is a person or not, and if so, if it is
endowed with the unalienable rights as enumerated in the Declaration of
Independence. The title, “Order of Rights” refers to the order in which the
categories of rights are deliberately listed in the document: Life, Liberty and
Pursuit of Happiness.
The debate over the sanctity of life is at the center of the
upcoming prolife film, “The Order of Rights.” Releasing October 2,2020, from
Stone Road Productions on streaming platforms Amazon, Google, and VUDU, the
movie raises the issue of whether a child in the womb is a person or not.
“The Order of Rights” centers on Emma Stein (Emma Elle
Roberts), a pregnant single girl who has been advised by her mother to have an
abortion despite the objection of the child's young Christian father, Ethan
Carpenter (Ben Davies). Even as Ethan tries to help her, she decides to go ahead
with terminating the pregnancy. Ethan and his family file a lawsuit on behalf
of the child’s right to life, and their story moves to prominence as a nationally
publicized court case. The court has to decide whether the child in Emma’s womb
is a person or not and if so if it is endowed with the unalienable rights as
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. “The title, “The Order of
Rights” refers to the order in which the categories of rights are deliberately
listed in the Declaration of Independence: ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of
Happiness,’ such ideals often recognized as America’s mission statement upon
which our governing framework, the Constitution, is based,” said Jim Ball,
movie director. In most abortion cases, a mother’s ‘right to pursue happiness’
overshadows a baby’s ‘right to life.’ The film’s fair-minded approach gives
audiences a nuanced look at both views of the unborn in a courtroom setting.
“It is our hope to raise the voices of millions through this film who are
speaking out and especially for those who cannot speak for themselves, the
unborn,” said Steve Ball, executive producer. “It is also our hope that this
film touches those who have experienced abortions so that they know that they
can receive forgiveness and begin to heal."
