It was forty years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court issued what was purportedly a judicial opinion in Roe v. Wade.
In the course deciding a case or controversy, the Court issued a ruling and opinion, what amounted to a decree, that it was unconstitutional to legislate against the deliberate killing of a developing child still in the womb of her mother, under certain circumstances.
Roe v. Wade essentially blocks the prosecution for prenatal child-killing, as could have been brought under laws already on the books in many jurisdictions.
It also carves out what amounts to a Prenatal Murder Exception (PME) to prosecutions for murder, when the target of the murder is a child in the womb.
Some argue that the decision permitted procedures to kill a child in gestation after the first trimester, while others have argued that the decision and its progeny have allowed prenatal child-killing on demand through exceptions for the murky yardstick of the mental health of the mother.
Since then, there have been more than 55 million surgical killings of prenatal children in the United States, impacting the lives of tens of millions of mothers participating in the willful killing of their own children, as well as fathers suffering the killing of their children, and anyone else coming in contact with them.
Prenatal child-killing is the biggest threat to the national security of the United States.
More Americans have died in the womb since Roe v. Wade, more than 55 million, the number of Americans killed in all wars since the founding of the Republic.
On average, prenatal child-killing is the equivalent of 9/11 every single day. The daily average of Americans killed in the womb by “abortion” is greater than the numbers of Americans killed in the terrorist attacks, the act of war by a non-state actor, on Sept. 11, 2001.
When the point is made about national security, some listeners are so used to the idea of national security narrowly relating to the military, and to additional actors such as the free-lance spies and saboteurs known as terrorists, and their terrorist groups.
The point is far more fundamental than that. National security is about defending the lives of the citizenry against all threats. So-called “abortion” is, by far, the biggest of those threats.
Core Function of Government to Defend Life
Even in the days of more prevalent despots, when Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan in an attempt to provide an intellectual structure to justify the usurpation of power by a sovereign heading a nation-state, it was pointed out that the one bedrock principle justifying governmental authority was the need to create a peaceful setting in which average people were safe from attack. By pooling power in the hands of the sovereign, instead of warlords and renegades, everyone else could go about their lives in relative peace and stability. The alternative was the law of the jungle, where life would be poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Prenatal child-killing strips away that function of the sovereign, that fundamental duty of a government, to a mind-numbing degree and with a mind-boggling scope.
Treason and Impeachment
One “abortion” is a crime. Many “abortions” represent many crimes, and to organize to carry them out falls under the rubric of criminal conspiracy. 55 million abortions can only be considered a variant of domestic treason.
All of the above would be grounds for impeachment of a judge, justice or president. Roe v. Wade has no controlling effect whatsoever on impeachment proceedings
As Saint Augustine said, an unjust law is now law. Indeed, rather than Roe v. Wade reshaping law, Roe v. Wade is itself evidence of a crime, and is itself a crime as well.
But even if Roe v. Wade was followed as a kind of false law in other settings, it need have no impact whatsoever on an impeachment proceeding.
Impeachment, set out by the Constitution, is part of the duty of Congress. It is part of their job, for which they are paid.
In the past, there was a move towards scaling back impeachment, with the idea that impeachment should not be politicized. But when it is the judge himself who has politicized the judiciary, by casting aside the Constitution in favor of a political agenda, ironically it is impeachment by the political branch, the Congress, that is necessary to restore integrity to the judiciary and begin the process of restoring rule of law.
Ironically, when the judiciary has been infiltrated by subversive elements seeking to politicize it, under the Constitution it is the political branch that is required to act to restore rule of law. Ironically, even if skittish impeachment-phobia prevents Congress from carrying out its duty, under the argument that they are wanting to avoid politicized the judiciary, their very inaction politicizes it more. Their very inaction allows the politicization within the judiciary, by infiltration of subversives, to deepen and spread, perhaps emboldened by the impunity implied by the cowardly or indecisive legislators.
Even beyond the treason issue, the concept of the so-called “living Constitution” is itself patently illegal. The concept is that lawyers with political appointments — which is what American judges are — will inflict their own emotions about changes in public morals, or perhaps project what they think future changes might be, or should be, and then create a self-fulfilling prophecy through the corrosive impact on society by a bad decision in itself.
But the Constitution provides a mechanism to alter itself in the event of seismic changes in national morals. It provides the amending process, creating stability within that framework by providing a national super-consensus to alter the core text, not the frivolous emotionalism of a handful of politically appointed lawyers.
The Roe v. Wade decision is illegal in violating the provision of the Constitution relating to constitutional amendment.
It further violates the recognition in both the plain text of the Constitution and the plain text of the proto-Constitution, the founding Declaration of Independence.
In short, while an individual “abortion” is a crime, the scale of the “abortion” phenomenon is treason, it is anti-American, it is unlawful.
Presidential duties and obligations
As a kind of do-it-yourself civil war with its impact, a declaration of war against the most helpless and defenseless among us, the threat posed by “abortion” arguably triggers Commander-in-Chief powers and obligations by the president to act to bring it to an end, just as he would be obligated to act with urgency against any other threat wiping out several thousand Americans every day with no end in sight.
Terms of Art, Propaganda Surrounding Prenatal Child-Killing
A pioneer of the prenatal child-killing industry, who later converted to Catholicism and become prolife, once explained that various terms of propaganda invented to paper over the realities of child-killing were invented early on as a smokescreen. Favorites of the “abortion” lobby include “right to choose” or “pro-choice” (which side-steps the nature of what is being chosen) or “my body, my choice” (which side-steps the fact that a child in the womb is not part of the mother’s body, but rather is a unique and distinct life; by definition, an “abortion” is performed precisely because another individual is present, whom someone wishes to kill; the sole purpose and focus of the procedure is to kill that second individual, or additional individuals if the mother carries more than one child in her womb)
Abortion “Euphemism” for Deliberate Killing of Specific Individual
The term “abortion” is itself essentially a euphemism for what amounts to deliberate murder. One surmises that “abortion” is short for “artificial abortion,” implying that an “abortion” is something akin to an induced miscarriage.
The clinical-sounding name presumably helps mask the horror of the act’s true nature, with a mix of denial by those who cannot face the reality of what they have been involved with, and those wishing to go along with a popular injustice while pretending to be dignified or even learned while doing so.
The desire to sound learned or dignified is as old as tyranny itself. Historically, despots often have longed to seem refined and intelligent, even while being brutal psychopaths. And now we have jurists, and the young fresh law school graduates who usually are the ones writing their opinions, endorsing cold-blooded killing of innocent human lives, going through the motions of structured argument, and even falsely intellectual-sounding jargon, to dress up the unseemly, disreputable nature of what they are doing.
By definition, “abortion” is not a natural act like the tragic occurrence that is a miscarriage, nor is it an inducement of a natural process.
What is referred to as an “abortion” is actually prenatal child-killing (PNCK), perhaps better known as prenatal murder (PNM).
So-called “abortion” is defined by the existence of an additional unique life and a desire to kill that life. To kill the life of the additional person present is the sole function, focus and purpose of a so-called “abortion.”
Impact on Mothers and Fathers
“Abortion” has been shown to have a lingering and debilitating effect on millions of mothers and fathers who have lost their children to it. Post-traumatic symptoms, as well as the horrific spiritual harm upon perpetrators, such as the mothers participating in the killing of their own child, as well as the collateral victims, such as other family members surviving the dead child, linger on for years, and have ripple effects on anyone else coming in contact with the suffering parties. Ironically, years of court decisions and other sources of information, have pointed out the ripple effects in terms of lost productivity, diminished quality of life and disrupted interpersonal relations springing from such problems with mental and emotional health.
“Abortion” interferes with the natural diversity of human beings in society, causing society to lose out on countless working hours that would have been performed by the dead, as well as all the unique creative inputs and innovations they would have brought, great or small. More importantly, it wipes out the unfolding human history that would have flowed from the dead living their lives, marrying others, having their own children and participating in the life of their family, community and nation.
“Abortion” has killed preborn Black babies at a rate roughly five times that of Whites. It is the leading cause of death for Blacks. As such, “abortion” represents a racist impact, an anti-Black genocide.
By curious coincidence, the largest “abortion” industry perpetrator was founded by an individual who spoke to her organization’s hope to limit the number of Negro babies, who reputedly praised Adolf Hitler. At least one photo exists of her speaking to a Ku Klux Klan gathering, with those in attendance, in Klan robes and coned hats, giving her a Nazi salute.
In the 1860 census, right before the Civil War, there were roughly 4 million Black slaves in America. Most of them presumably survived and were freed, to whatever extent they later faced continued racism.
“Abortion” likely has killed almost four times that many Blacks. Again, “abortion” has victimized roughly four times as many Black children, eight times as many Black children and mothers combined, as compared with the entire population of Black slaves in America in 1860.
In impact and effect, it is impossible not to consider a “pro-choice” advocate or voter to be anything other than a racist. Even if they act out of ignorance, their impact is still decidedly and undeniably racist.
Given the overwhelming scope of the killing, it is impossible to consider a voter or other supporter backing an “abortion”-friendly candidate to be anything other than racist in their impact. Even if they were ignorant of the facts, the racist impact is their.
In the case of the incumbent president, Barack Hussein Obama (who reportedly went by Barry prior to his political ambitions), who has supported “abortion” and accepted money from the “abortion” industry, we have a case of what used to be known as “Black on Black racism.”
In the case of pro-abortion Muslim Congressman Andre Carson, who sits in a seat previously held by his grandmother, Carson tried to accuse the budget-oriented, so-called “Tea Party” of being racist, for no apparent reason then their zealous attack on budget deficits. He alleged that, if the Tea Party grew powerful, there would be lynchings.
Given Andre Carson’s support for “abortion,” and given “abortion’s” racist impact, we are forced to regard Andre Carson in the same boat as Barry Obama, representing another example of “Black on Black racism.”
It is Andre Carson effectively carrying out the lynchings of his fellow Blacks, however indirectly, by virtue of his support for the anti-Black genocide of prenatal child-killing.
Impact on National Economy and Federal Budget
By wiping out 55 million Americans in the womb, and leaving the mothers, fathers and other survivors with debilitating spiritual and mental health problems, “abortion” cannot be regarded as doing anything other than suppressing and depressing what would have been the normal functioning and flowering of the economy.
Moreover, “abortion” emerges as the only reason Social Security and Medicare face solvency problems. It also is the main reason for federal budget problems.
The biggest budget issue is entitlements. The biggest entitlements are Social Medicare and Medicare. The biggest issue for Social Security and Medicare are demographics. And “abortion” wiping out 55 million present or future American workers, along with their innovations, leadership, inventions and other human diversity, is the one demographic 800 pound gorilla.
Seniors, and those soon to be seniors, have only “abortion” to thank, and their inability to vote out each and every pro-abortion candidate,” as the reason Social Security and Medicare face problems. And efforts to shore up those systems will require a tax burden on everyone else that will stifle their own economic activity as well.
Responsibility for Choices Made
Much is made of so-called “reproductive choice,” a term whose application is so self-deluded an irrational as to not even rise to the level of rhetoric. So-called “abortion” does not reinforce reproductive choice, but rather kills someone to avoid responsibility for a reproductive choice already made, to snuff out reproduction that already has occurred, killing a human being in the process.
There is an old saying — “you cannot be a little bit pregnant.” You either are pregnant, or you are not. And when you are pregnant, you are not pregnant with a toe-nail. You are pregnant with a baby.
The reproductive choice has already been made, and reproduction already has been occurring.
Contraceptives a False Symbol
Rape Issue a False Manipulation
Prolife advocates, or rather would-be celebrities seizing the spotlight, make the mistake of responding to the “abortion-for-rape” argument in a rational manner.
They sometimes point out that less than 1% of prenatal murders are killing a baby conceived in rape.
More useful is the effort to point out the numbers of persons walking around who were conceived in rape, who are very pleased they were not murdered for a crime committed by their biological father. To put it directly, it’s not the baby’s fault.
Pro-killing advocates, of course, would like to “get a foot in the door” to subtly create a scenario where the excuse for killing is said to justify the killing.
The reason prenatal murder is wrong is that human life starts at least by conception, with Holy Scripture reminding us that, in some manner, human life actually starts before conception. Sacred Scripture for both Jews and Christians declares to God, “before You knitted me in my Mother’s womb, You knew me.”
Yet by carving out a prenatal murder exception for rape and incest, it creates the precedent of denying the humanity of the victim being murdered in the womb.
But even here, we do not get to the point.
The issue is not whether prenatal child-killing is ever sought for rape or incest. The issue is that reportedly one-fourth of women and girls have been the victim of rape, incest or some other coercive sexual activity.
The pro-killing forces are being manipulative, trying to dig into the wounds of those women, to make them associate respect for human life with their attackers. The manipulation seeks to trick PTSD victims into thinking that if they become a violent abuser themselves, and actually kill their own child, being a bully and a murderer will mean that they are strong again.
In reality, it means they would be worse off than before, and actually worse than their abuser.
A rape victim murdering her own baby actually is morally worse than the rapist who attacked her.
Murder is even more vicious than rape.
The pro-killing advocates are trying to take a rape victim and turn her into something even worse than her attacker, by trying to trick her into believing this will somehow heal her of what happened. The opposite is true.
At the same time, one does not know the mental and moral state of the rape victim being manipulated by the “abortion” perpetrators. The “abortion” is like an additional rape, in that we do not know the capacity of a woman in that state of mind to give actual consent.
When demanding future restitution over “abortion,” the restitution due society from those culpable for “abortion,” a good first step will be to have some of that restitution go towards the women themselves.
Culpability of Politicians, Lawyers and Judges
Check back for the completion of this article, updates, additional data and additional articles spun off from this source.
Copyright (c) 2013, Steven C. Welsh