Has Roe Been Good For Women?

Roe V Wade
This week, Roe v. Wade turns 40. The social and political effects of this decision—which struck down state restrictions on abortion—have been profound, but have they helped women? Four decades into this social experiment, it’s worth a look.

From the pro-life perspective, Roe is often portrayed as the beginning of an era of legalized murder. From the pro-choice perspective, Roe levels the playing field between men and women by allowing women to postpone childbearing until they are in an economic position to do so responsibly. It marks the departure from the “Mad Men” world in which a working woman was viewed more in terms of her uterus than her brain.

Both perspectives are misleading. Pro-lifers should note that Roe did not, strictly speaking, legalize abortion in a nation where it previously was illegal. It just prohibited states from restricting a practice that was already legal in some states and which women and midwives had been carrying out quietly for centuries.

Abortion advocates, by contrast, must come to terms with the fact that legal access to abortion has not brought women to full equality – far from it. Yes, many women today occupy positions of which their grandmothers could only have dreamt. Yes, many women have the luxury of choosing how to find their own balance between work and family. Yes, the notion of women as primary breadwinners while their husbands stay home with children has become much more mainstream. Yet, women are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same work, and much more needs to be done.

Related: You Can Be Pro-Choice Politically and Be A Pro-Life Advocate in Your Community – by Romal Tune

Besides, it is debatable whether women truly have a choice about abortion or whether others exercise that choice for them. Many low-income women are pressured into abortion because their jobs will not give them time off, because they lack the family or financial support to stay in school, or because they fear they will lose their jobs. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 69 percent of women who have an abortion subsist below or just over the poverty line (about $11,000 – $22,000 a year for a single woman and $15,000 to $30,000 a year for a family).

With Roe, abortion became the ultimate wedge issue—where spin control, sound bites, and fear tactics trump good public policy and common sense. Want to disrupt the kind of bipartisan conversation we Americans need to have? Wave a coat hanger or a picture of an aborted fetus or claim there is an attack on women’s health. For groups on both sides of the abortion issue, abortion politics has become big business; the current destructive stalemate between the sides becomes their meal ticket. In this polarized environment, we have lost sight of the women in the cross-fire who are facing crisis pregnancies or wondering whether to bring a special-needs child into the world. Compassion has given way to one-upmanship.  As a result, the women and their children whom both sides claim as their motivation are neglected by both sides.

For example, we see this behavior in New York State where Governor Cuomo is jeopardizing a women’s equality bill that addresses violence against women, pay equity, and human trafficking. His efforts to add sweeping abortion language that would supersede laws mandating parental consent, public funding of abortion, and even bans on late term abortion will certainly make it more difficult to pass real reform to help women.

As a feminist, I refuse to concede that the pinnacle of the struggle for women’s equality is the right to have an unwanted pregnancy surgically ripped from my body. In fact, I refuse to believe that abortion has anything to do with equality at all. I should just be equal under the law. Unfortunately, abortion advocates successfully linked abortion to women’s rights, and it became a line in the sand that has assumed a political significance far above its actual importance to women’s equality.

Brave New Films

Most critically, Roe has nationalized the abortion issue. The federal judiciary, by reserving the right to decide what restrictions on abortion are constitutional, has turned the symbol of abortion politics from a crowded city council chamber or a legislative committee room to the marble steps of the Supreme Court. Thus, with so many single-issue voters on both sides of the issue, the judicial nomination process (and the senatorial and presidential elections on which this process depends) has turned into a referendum on abortion rights for many people—drawing scrutiny away from the host of other issues that judges, senators, and presidents address to a single hot-button issue.

Related: Why Abortion Should Not Be Politically Decisive for Christians

However, there is hope. One of the most overlooked achievements of the Affordable Care Act was the inclusion of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund (formerly part of the Pregnant Women Support Act). This provision gives grants to states to establish pilot programs aimed at assisting women in crisis pregnancies and helping them bring their pregnancies to term. Seventeen states are running successful pilot programs that help pregnant and parenting college women complete their degrees and find jobs, help pregnant teens complete their high school education, and provide job training and other support. None of this grant money can be used for abortion.

Under the ACA, pregnancy is no longer a pre-existing condition, and women receive pre-natal and post-natal care. Breast and cervical cancer screenings will be included in health plans. Women in all economic situations, especially the 19 million women who are not currently insured, will receive comprehensive health care coverage and not be charged more than men for the same plans just because they are women. The ACA was a real victory for the health of women and babies, despite what demagogues on either side of the abortion issue have asserted to the contrary.

On January 22, men and women around the country will be celebrating or mourning the passage of Roe. Unless there is a united front to put pregnant women first, Roe will continue to provide a wedge issue, an excuse to raise money, or a reason to March on Washington. Women deserve better. Children deserve better. America deserves common-sense solutions that empower women to choose life.

Kristen Day is the Executive Director of Democrats For Life of America and the author of Democrats For Life, Pro-life Politics and the Silenced Majority

Photo Credit: AP Photos

Print Friendly

About the Author

  • otrotierra

    Thank you Kristen Day for sharing a thoughtful commentary.

  • Bobby B

    Good article.

  • I. E.

    Great article Kristine. Your point below is indeed overlooked. As a matter of fact I wasn’t even aware of it. I will reference this article on my recent FB blog on Obamacare.

    “One of the most overlooked achievements of the Affordable Care Act was the inclusion of the Pregnancy Assistance Fund (formerly part of the Pregnant Women Support Act).”

    • And this is at least negatively offset by the unconsciencable demand of people of faith and conscience to provide “free” healthcare to women that covers abortifacients and abortions which results in the slaughter of babies formed by God in the Imago Dei.

      • I. E.

        The “Pregnancy Assistance Fund” is a pragmatic step to reducing the number of abortions. Every prolife person ought to rejoice because this addresses some of the root causes of abortion.

      • I. E.

        The “Pregnancy Assistance Fund” is a pragmatic step to reducing the number of abortions. Every prolife person ought to rejoice because this addresses some of the root causes of abortion.

        • Money is not a root cause of abortion. The root cause of abortion is selfishness, greed, malice, and murder. People may commit filicide in order to keep earning more money but to use as an excuse that one commit filicide because they don’t have enough money to raise that precious child of God made in the Imago Dei when there are ~ 2,000,000 couples waiting to adopt, and/or the government already offers money to help raise your children, is just untrue, inane and sinful. Sin is NEVER justified by the perceived dearth of money.

          • I. E.

            Peter Fodera, you miss the point: “This provision gives grants to states to establish pilot programs aimed at assisting women in crisis pregnancies and helping them bring their pregnancies to term. Seventeen states are running successful pilot programs that help pregnant and parenting college women complete their degrees and find jobs, help pregnant teens complete their high school education, and provide job training and other support. None of this grant money can be used for abortion.” I pray you are able to open up your mind some.

          • It’s nice that you can look into the heart, mind and soul of every woman who has an abortion. Wow, you are really self righteous. There are 100,000 children in foster care that are free to be adopted. I wonder why they haven’t been adoped yet. And we all know that poor children live in safe places, are well educated and have wonderful lives, right?

          • Appx. 2 million couples waiting to adopt? I’d be interested to see where you found that number – because my research has yielded 0 results for people seeking to adopt, but several hits about children waiting to be adopted – including the 100,000+ children in foster care in 2010 awaiting adoption, who weren’t adopted. Fascinating that none of those children were adopted by all of those people eagerly waiting for the chance to adopt…

          • I. E.

            Snommelp, great points! Ayinde’s post is aligned with yours. I hope our friend Peter Fodera will not go into hiding and stand up to substantiate his claims….

          • I realized right after I clicked “submit” that I had basically just rehashed what Ayinde said 😛 Still, it’s a point that bears repeating. How can we possibly have that many couples looking to adopt, and at the same time have that many children waiting to be adopted?

          • DavidRauschenbach

            Because they’re looking for babies, not older children.

          • If that is the case, then the statistics are misleading. “Two million just waiting to adopt! …as long as the child is the age they want, which 100,000 aren’t.”

      • The morning after pill is not an abortifacient. It can not stop a pregnancy which is defined as a fertilized egg that has attached to the uterus. It just stops pregnancies from occuring. If your cause is just, you don’t need to lie to support it.

  • I’m deeply concerned why you would take ONLY a gynocentric view of filicide but neither a theocentric nor natalcentric one. No good theology exists that does not look at a behavior through God’s own eyes and addresses what He has to say about that behavior, nor does a good theology ignore looking at the theological and eternal consequences for the persons engaging in that behavior; and a good theology ALWAYS looks at the victims of a behavior and what God has to say about them to those who allow the sinful behavior — that makes them victims — to perpetuate.

    I had hoped you would have done some due diligence and discovered that it is NOT truthful, wholly truthful, and nothing but truthful to parrot the mantra,

    ” . . . women are still paid less than their male counterparts for the same work, . . . ” The operative words being “for the same work.”

    Study after study shows that over their careers men, on average, work BOTH more dangerous and physically laborious jobs that pay a risk premium, and work more total days than women. The issue is NOT WHY women work fewer days and less risky and demanding jobs but what that means both to their employer(s) and their career earnings.

    Ceteris paribus, for one group of people — however you wish to differentiate them — to work both less dangerous and demanding jobs than another and fewer total days over time, fundamental Economics 101 teaches us that employers who wish to stay in business by turning a profit and remaining competitive within the GLOBAL market — much of which has much less expensive labor than does America — and continue to attract the BEST, BRIGHTIST, MOST HIGHLY SKILLED, WILLING TO WORK THE MOST DANGEROUS, LABORIOUS AND RIGOROUS JOBS, and HAVE THE LONGEST EXPERIENCE, employers must offer a pay differential to them over those who are not and do not.

    In short, women on average work less dangerous/risky and physically demanding jobs, and fewer total days, months and years over their careers.

    We may NOT like it – I certainly don’t as a recipient of the negative consequences – but employers from experience do NOT find people of any gender who have one or more months’ long interruptions in their careers to be as valuable as those who do not.

    I live this truth.

    But somewhere in this discussion it NEEDS to be mentioned that nearly 1 out of every 4 pregnant American women (23% to be precise) elect to commit filicide and are horrifically afforded legal immunity while nonetheless facing the wrath of a simultaneously loving and righteously angry God. 1,211,000 babies under the age of 1 annually, a total of over 55,000,000 since Roe v Wade was decided, have been demonically snuffed out with temporal impunity. On the question of “how good has Roe v Wade been for women?” the only reasonable answer is HORRIFIC. Over 600,000 females are snuffed out each year before their first birthday, and over 27,500,000 have been slaughtered within the God-given sanctity of their own mothers’ wombs — which has NO OTHER BIOLOGICAL PURPOSE other than to nurture human babies during the 1st nine months of their lives — with help from “doctors” who swore an Hippocratic oath to “First do NO HARM!”

    NOTHING good has come to men, women and children from Roe v Wade; not within the Kingdom of God!

  • Brendon

    Why am I not surprised – I got to the end of this article, only to find Kristen neglecting to knowledge that abortion breaks the heart of God. In you’re efforts to advance women’s rights (which I agree with), don’t shy away from the truth: abortion is wrong. Proclaim it with boldness – with love compassion. But proclaim it!

    • Jonathan

      So, the end of the article says that she is the Executive Director of “Democrats for Life”, a group dedicated to advancing the pro-life cause and opposing abortion. Makes me suspect you didn’t actually get to the end of the article.

      • Brendon

        I read the whole article, my friend. But like I said, nowhere in the “article” did she state her opposition to abortion. If she really is against it, why not say it?

        • Jonathan

          Nowhere in the article does she explicitly state that she is a woman, either. She relies on the fact that she makes statements that only women can make, her picture, and her name (which is not stated in the “article”), to make that clear. If she really is a woman, why not say it, in the “article”?

          Same with her stance on abortion. She takes apart one of the primary argument that pro-abortion forces use to advance their cause. She leads an organization that has been outspoken in its opposition to abortion within the Democratic Party, particularly in a time when they are a shrinking minority, relegated to the fringe of their party, kept from speaking at the Democratic National Convention, and abused and mocked by powerful pro-abortion forces. She’s written a book that makes their pro-life stance crystal clear. They have been “proclaiming it” for decades. For you to question her commitment to the pro-life cause borders on the absurd.

          • Jake

            Easy man – no need to get so angry. It’s just a blog.

        • Ben Donahower

          Here’s my take: because it didn’t advance her argument. Her point was no matter where you stand on abortion, ACA does good things, we need to focus on pregnant women, poverty issues, and make meaningful steps towards equal protection under the law and not focus on abortion as the penultimate equality issue. To make those points, she didn’t need to present her own view on abortion.

  • Frank

    It hasn’t been good for the 55 million killed children in the US alone or for each of the women/men who have been complicit and must deal with the emotional, psychological, relational and spiritual consequences. The Kingdom of God loses out most of all. So please tell me again why any Christian should support abortion on demand?

    • Bob

      “The Kingdom of God” loses out? You’re going to have to explain this one to me and present compelling evidence to convince me.

      • Frank

        Bob if you cannot figure out on your own that killing a life that God created and blessed someone with damages the Kingdom then I am at a loss at what could ever convince you.

        • Jake

          Well, said, Frank. I agree.

          Bob . . . are you kidding me?

        • Frank, I think that Bob might genuinely be asking for some thoughts. Not everyone has been in this debate arena for years. I would be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on how we can effectively reduce abortion, not just make it illegal (although I am open to that being a part of a bigger solution).

  • Well said Kristen. The best piece I have ever read on this sensitive issue.

  • Today is a Day of mourning, grieving, wailing, the gnashing of teeth, and sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Exactly forty (40) years ago today seven men succumbed to Feminazism and abrogated their solemn oath to faithfully interpret and rule on the Constitution of the United States which is an outgrowth of the Declaration of Independence that stated unequivocally that all of us — from womb to tomb — are created EQUAL and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights: the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the pursuit (but not the government guarantee of) HAPPINESS. Without the former the latter two plus all the others in the Bill of Rights are moot.

    Forty years ago today Planned Parenthood Action, Planned Parenthood and their Abortion Mill ilk began the wanton slaughter with impunity of babies as young as a few weeks old up to nine months in the God-given safety and security of their own mothers’ wombs which God created for no other biological, spiritual or reproductive right purpose other than to provide nurture and succor for the first nine months of their own precious flesh and blood babies’ lives.

    Planned Parenthood and similar other Abortion Mills hired immoral doctors who swore a sacred Hippocratic Oath to FIRST “Do no harm,” and together with the assent and acquiescence of pregnant mothers began the holocaust of filicide, murdering babies by saline, toxic drugs, dismemberment, and the piercing of their brains with sharp instruments, among other diabolical means.

    Please take a moment to mourn, wail, cry out and repent. Beg God for mercy. Beseech Him to intervene and crush once and for all the Abortion Industry. Supplicate God that He would soften and turn the hearts of those in abusive power such as Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid, John Boehner, Chief Justice John Roberts, and others who hold the God-given power to finally align the law with irrefutable science that Human Life begins at the miraculous moment of conception, and that to do anything less than protect and safeguard that precious life through the first nine months is to pact with the devil himself to destroy all that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent and praiseworthy.

    Pray feverishly this day and henceforth that Congress and/or SCOTUS will act and that the President will repent and sign a moral law that outlaws filicide and protects the precious lives of mothers, daughters, and sons.

    • Feminazism? Barack Hussein Obama? You sound like a sexist and a racist. Do you spare any tears for the women who will die as they try to self-abort or go to butchers if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Oh wait, their only women. You do know your whole women do less strenous jobs is nonsense. Women are outenrolling men in higher education and white collar jobs outearn blue collar jobs. Many identical jobs play men more for no reason other than sex. There are many EEOC discrimination suits that show that. But I guess if Rush Limbaugh didn’t say it, you don’t believe it. God loves all people. Women, men, children. Women who choose not to bear children. Women who are unable to bear children. God does not see women as baby machines. Sorry that you do. You do not sound like a red letter Christian to me.

      • audie

        Using the president’s full name is racist?

        • Using the president’s full name is not racist, but there’s an odd correlation, where the only people who ever bother mentioning his middle name are the same people who claim that he is a Kenyan Muslim (implicit accusation of terrorist affiliations), in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

          • wjgreen314

            You don’t imagine that Barack Hussein Obama signaled he’s a Kenyan Muslim with a terrorist affiliation when he used his full name during his 1st inauguration, do you?!

        • Barack Hussein Obama used his FULL NAME during his 1st inaugural swearing in ceremony. Is Obama racist?

          • Valarie

            Why are you so full of hate, and lacking in empathy and compassion for those with differing views? I don’t think Jesus would approve of your behavior.

          • wjgreen314

            Was it not hatred for sin that God the Father required nothing less than God the Son’s painful crucifixion for the propitiation of sins? You betcha! Why don’t YOU hate sin?

          • Valarie

            It isn’t in me to hate. I am to love, unconditionally. Loving others, even those I disagree with, feels good.

          • wjgreen314

            Since God HATES sin enough to require nothing less than the prolonged, excruciatingly painful, gruesome death of His only Begotten Son as the propitiation of sin, is there any reason why God would NOT want us to also hate sin and love the people who commit them?

          • Valarie

            “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is not scriptural. Love and hate cannot co-exist.

            These are from Romans.

            You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless Christ died for the ungodly. (5:6)

            God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners Christ died for us. (5:8)

            For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to
            him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled,
            shall we be saved through his life! (5:10)

            “Still powerless”, “the ungodly”, “still sinners”, and “God’s enemies”. God loved us as the person described by these characteristics.

            A person is *not* divisible in the way the cliche “love the sinner, hate the sin”, and our underlying anthropology assumes. In the Bible there is no such division of a person that separates what we do from who we are. Identity is inseparable from our activity. Romans 5:1-11 teaches the radical idea: God loves the sinner, period. That’s how radical God’s love is. And praise be to God for his radical love.This radical love is what we are called to, when Christ told us to love our enemies.

          • wjgreen314

            I never used the phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin;” you did. But the crucifixion is ALL THE PROOF ANYONE NEEDS that God abhors, hates, despises, harbors ill will towards, treats with malice (pick a similar word) sin. That much HUMAN pain and suffering is commensurate w/ God’s hatred of/toward sin. IF God did NOT hate sin then to DEMAND His Son undergo a horrifically-painful & gruesome crucifixion would highly suggest God hated His Son and by extension, us. He doesn’t. He loves His Son and us but hates sin enough to demand painful propitiation for it. You are welcome.

          • Valarie

            He loved us while we were sinners. He loves us regardless of our sin. No one is righteous, not even you. Which is why we need a Savior. Instead of pointing out the sin of others (which Jesus said not to do)(Matthew 7:3), and beating people over the head with it, ask the Holy Spirit to make you aware of your own sin, and work on that.

          • wjgreen314

            Thank you for that Truth. However, the Truth ALWAYS consists of the Truth, the WHOLE Truth, and nothing but the TRUTH, so help us God. Your focus is on partial Truth and mine is upon the WHOLE Truth, that includes what YOU said and WHAT I SAID. You are welcome.

          • wjgreen314

            BTW: God is entirely comfortable with paradox and creating situations, events & even persons who present us with paradoxes; at least NOT explainable by current science. One such paradox is Jesus was fully human & simultaneously fully of the essence of deity.

      • wjgreen314

        Thank God only a minority number of women are FemiNazis; most are either self-described feminists, girly-girls, tom boys or something other. And surely you were privy to Barack Hussein Obama’s 1st inauguration when HE chose to be sworn in using his FULL name: Barack Hussein Obama. Do you not think that if it was Obama’s CHOICE to use his full name for the record it ought to be our choice, too?

        Note: FemiNazis are characterized by, among other things, a general misandry expressed by a felt need to “destroy the all boyz club,” FREE abortion on demand and without apology in order to commit >= 1,211,000 filicides with legal impunity per year (56,000,000 since 1973, far more than were killed by the Nazis during the Holocaust), and other personal demands made at OTHER PEOPLE’S EXPENSE.

  • I am a born-again Christian and reading this was a breath of fresh air! For those criticising the author for failing to condemn abortion, please note she also failed to praise pregnancy. That’s because her article is geared at moving us away from equating women’s equality with their wombs.

    • Neither God nor Biology has found another purpose or raison d’etre for women’s uteri OTHER THAN to provide a sanctified, safe, and secure place for a precious new human life created in the Imago Dei to be nurtured for the first 9 months of his or her life.

      PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

      • Prove you wrong? Easily. Your comment is a response, and so must be taken in conversation with the comment to which you are responding. That first comment is about viewing women fully as human, as more than just their wombs. Your response is to froth at the mouth about the purpose of a uterus. Thus, it would appear that you are ignoring the fact that women are also made in the image of God, preferring instead to imagine women as being vessels for their uteri. Therefore, at a fundamental level, you are wrong.

        • Frank

          If women are made in the image of God and a uterus that has a unique purpose is part of Gods creation then William ( although I think he has a coupe screws loose, sorry Wlilliam but you do) poses a very relevant question. Can you answer it directly?

          • William is raising a point that is not being argued against, so why would I answer his question directly? Neither I, nor Njeri, nor Kristen Day in the original post have said anything in support of abortion. I won’t humor William by honoring his diversionary tactic and his dehumanization of women.

          • Frank

            Fair enough. Even though we may agree on the substance around certain issues I cringed myself at posting anything that would support or encourage him.

          • Certainly Jesus cringes when you cringe from supporting the FACTS and His Truth.

          • The reason WHY you would NOT answer my question directly is because you can NOT offer an answer that BOTH refutes me and you’re happy giving. In other words there is NO answer other than the truthful one which corroborates my fact and you hate the truth.

          • Glad to know you can see into the hearts of men. It is a rare talent.

          • ICYMI: Jesus had a lot of screws lose. So don’t bother apologizing for Jesus nor me. Ask yourselves why your screws are wound so tight and you’re so judgmental and critical without being FACTUAL or TRUTHFUL?

            But thanks for at least recognizing one easy truth that a uterus is biologically incapable of anything but nurturing a baby made in the Imago Dei during her first 9 months.

            I’m confident if you read, re-read, and read again what I wrote some more of screws and screwey ideas will loosen up.

        • Again, you make the egregious error and commit the horrific sin of assigning to my actual written words a meaning or meanings that those words do NOT convey. You attempt fecklessly to assign meaning NOT to what I wrote but what I did not write about and thus you attempt mendaciously to impute to me ideas and thoughts I do not hold.

          Again, confession and repentance are called for. All you do is level specious allegations without a single cogent, erudite, Biblically-based argument in logical refutation. IN short, your behavior is more akin to Satan in the Garden of Eden than to anything sermon, teaching, refutation, rebuke or admonishment Jesus ever gave.

          I forgive you and shower you with the pity and mercy you do not deserve. God bless you and cause the scales to fall from your eyes.

          • …and yet again, all I hear from you is “thank you Lord that I am not like this tax collector.”

          • And yet again you put in quotes words that the venerable William J. Green did NOT write, does NOT intend, and does not adhere to. You really are guilty of mendacity for bearing FALSE WITNESS against your older brother in the faith. Repentance is called for. I hope he forgives you even though you do not deserve it.

            It’s amazing how critical, angry and uninformed you are. Your posts convey nothing other than your frustration with William for his superior intelligence and understanding of God’s Kingdom as it is revealed within His Word.

            Can you not repent?

          • Thanks Daniel. Much obliged. I continue to be amazed by Snommelp’s dearth of understanding, erudition, Biblical knowledge, and the fact he seems perfectly content to make a feckless attempt to refute me without offering anything akin to empirical data, studies, evidence, or even other discourses or articles. He really thinks his seriously deficient opinion is enough to refute serious erudition backed up by research and citations to empirical evidence. Some people really are irrationally exuberant.

            But thanks again for your support. I look forward to reading more of what you have to write.

          • I have no interest in dialoguing with another William clone. History has already shown how fruitless that is.

          • “The venerable William J Green”….I wish that I had that kind of self esteem. Bless you.

          • :)

  • This is a really well written piece Kristen, and has brought up a few points that I was unaware of. Thanks for sharing it.


    Several members of Congress on Thursday (4/11/13) afternoon took to the floor of the House of representatives to expose the HORRORS abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell has committed and to decry the lack of media attention to them.

    Congressman Marlin Stutzman, an Indiana Republican, was one of the members who spoke on the House floor this afternoon to call attention to the horrific crimes Gosnell engaged in at his Philadelphia, Pennsylvania abortion clinic.


    One of the myriad problems with the euphemistic ProChoice (Filicide) argument is that women’s bodies do NOT come with 2 heads, 2 hearts, 4 legs and 4 arms.

    This means there are TWO bodies; two distinct homo sapiens formed in the Imago Dei, with one living ~ 0.93% of his/her life inside the uterus of the other, and the other 99.07% outside the womb, just like other lesser animals that receive intra-uterine and intra-egg protections that God’s homo sapiens do not currently but which did for millennia, and which theologically, morally, ethically and biologically SHOULD again.

    In fact, since Science has already declared unequivocally that a new human life BEGINS @ fertilization, it would only take the courage of Congress & POTUS to write and sign, respectively, a new law that re-defines natural human life as beginning and a new 14th amendment protected “person” as forming, when Science says it does: at fertilization to cause Roe to collapse and babies to be saved once again. Or, bypassing POTUS and the Judiciary altogether for either 2/3 majorities of both chambers of Congress PLUS 38 States (75%), or bypassing Congress, POTUS and the Judiciary altogether for any 38 States (75%) during a Constitutional Congress to ratify the same as a Constitutional Amendment.

    lifenews dot com/2013/04/11/ congressman-gosnell-an-abortion-predator-who-must-be-exposed/

  • wjgreen314

    “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, Roe v. Wade (1973), that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae, the United States, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule Roe.” – Justices O’Connor, Kennedy and Souter beginning their 5-4 Plurality Opinion in Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992).

    And yet we have as much doubt, capriciousness & imprecision as ever. Only this time the vote was a fractional 5-4 in favor of capriciousness rather than Roe’s original 7-2.

    Federal law (Planned Parenthood v Casey) now states that States’ interest in life TRUMPS women’s interest in slaughtering their own babies in or ex utero beginning at 22 weeks. SCOTUS has not defined the 22 – 40 week old baby as a “person” protected under the 14th amendment, only that sovereign States’ legal, social, moral & economic interest ECLIPSES women’s interest in vacating their uteri of unwanted 100% human DNA babies created in the Imago Dei beginning at 22 weeks gestation.

    In short: In States that CHOOSE to Federal Law permits them to preclude a woman from having a legal abortion after 22 weeks except under extreme circumstances, but the in utero baby must wait another 18 weeks to become full term at 40 weeks, and then undergo birth through the vaginal canal before being considered at least a juridical if not a natural “person” in the eyes of the law protected under the 14th amendment.

    However, the imprecision does NOT stop there. The law does NOT state whether the baby is “fully born” and thus a legally protected “person” when s/he fully clears the vagina by as little as 1/100th of an inch, or afterward when s/he has her umbilical cord severed, or when s/he takes her first breath, and does not state his/her legal status if s/he does not start breathing right away. It is all so very ad hoc and capricious.

    But it gets worse. Remember Scott Peterson, now sitting on Death Row, convicted of DOUBLE HOMICIDE?

    Federal Public Law 108-212 “The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004,” a.k.a. Laci and Connor’s Law recognizes that an unborn embryo or fetus can be a legal victim if (s/he) is injured or killed during the commission of a federal crime of violence. There are over 60 such crimes defined. The law was named after a mother, Laci Peterson, and her fetus, Connor Peterson, who were murdered circa 2002-Christmas by Scott Peterson in California. The law defines “a child in utero” as any “member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

    The bill passed the House by a vote of 254 to 163 on 2004-FEB-26. It passed the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38 on 2004-MAR-25. President George W Bush signed it into law on 2004-APR-01. He said:

    “Any time an expectant mother is a victim of violence, two lives are in the balance, each deserving protection, and each deserving justice. If the crime is murder and the unborn child’s life ends, justice demands a full accounting under the law.”

    NOTEWORTHY: Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who ran against Bush in 2004, voted against the bill. He said:

    “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy (with impunity as IF the fetus is NOT a human being).” (Text in parentheses mine for clarification).

    This capriciousness is akin to what was meant ONLY as a thought experiment: Schrodinger’s Cat, where a cat inside a box can simultaneously be thought of as ALIVE & DEAD. Except these are real life cases of precious baby human beings, wherein IF her mom kills her she’s dead but that’s fine because she was never a child in utero – a homo sapien to begin with; whereas if her father or another man or woman kills her she’s also dead but that is a heinous felony because she was INDEED alive to begin with and “a child in utero; a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development,” including younger than 22 weeks!

    Schrödginger’s Cat was only a thought experiment because Erwin Schrödinger knew, and logic dictates, that neither a cat nor a precious baby can simultaneously be dead AND alive and treated as such depending upon an arbitrary set of circumstances, such as gestational state and gender, or otherwise.

    This is arbitrary, immoral, even evil gestational sexism with unjust imprecision leading to too much ad hocness and far too much “jurisprudence of doubt.”

    The ONLY way to resolve this justly, morally, ethically, and legally with precision is to unequivocally define ‘human persons as coming into being…

    “…from the moment of fertilization; they are children in utero; members of the species homo sapiens; legally regarded as natural ‘persons’ protected under the 14th amendment.”

    This will cause Roe v Wade to collapse as the 1973 SCOTUS observed, and make killing him or her in utero from the moment of fertilization a felony with uncruel and usual punishments for EVERYONE who kills or aids & abets the killing of him or her, without regard for gender or gestational state.

    civilliberty dot about dot com /od/abortion/p/fetus_rights.htm

    en.wikipedia dot org/ wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey#The_Court.27s_opinions

    en dot wikipedia dot org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    prochoice dot org/ about_abortion/facts/after_12_weeks.html

    religioustolerance dot org/ abo_whenl.htm

    en dot wikipedia dot org/ wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger’s_cat

  • wjgreen314

    Here is some of the word-for-word text from the actual Roe v Wade SCOTUS case:

    “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” — Section IX

    “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” — Section IX

    IMPLICATION: When Medicine, Philosophy, and Theology ARRIVE at a CONSENSUS that life begins at fertilization, the judiciary will subordinate its ruling to this consensus and will rule that Roe COLLAPSES.

    Forty years later Medicine (Science), Non-Marxist Godless Philosophy and orthodox Judeo/Christian Theology (think how angry God was at Onan) AGREE Life Begins At CONCEPTION and the newly created LIFE is HUMAN, and because s/he is NOT an ape, toad nor ASS, s/he is a homo sapien PERSON.

    law2 dot umkc dot edu/ faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/roe dot html

    CONGRESS &/or >= 38 STATES have the POWER to DEFINE “personhood” as beginning at fertilization either by the Life At Conception Act OR by Constitutional Amendment

Read previous post:
Holistic Food Movement
Praying for a Holistic Food Movement in the Household of God

BY: JEREMY JOHN -- If we’re going to reform our nation’s unsustainable agricultural system, we’re going to need to tackle...