And it came to pass that the Supreme Court provisionally left alive a Texan law forbidding abortion from when a heartbeat is detectable, that is, around six weeks. Six weeks is good, then, unless and until technology advances, most women will discover too late that they are pregnant. One can also see a powerful argument in the collective imagination here: when a heartbeat is detected, how is this not a baby? I know, life begins at conception; but very many who don’t believe it will find it difficult to resist the heartbeat argument.
I have no illusion that this Texan law will survive the scrutiny to come, as I can’t imagine that jellyfishes like Kavanaugh and that traitorous other woman will find the fortitude to make the right choice here (a fairly easy one btw, as they could state that modern technology makes things known today that were, officially, not grasped in January 1973). Still, this decision is important.
It seems to me that there is a growing pressure against abortion, and that all these legislative measures officially doomed to fail are slowly but surely chewing the Nazi Wall away. In the end, the stolen 2020 elections have made clear to everybody in the most brutal way what everybody with a brain already knew: the important, society-changing decisions of the Supreme Court are eminently political. The Justices pretended that the Constitution gives the right to abort and to live in abominable circumstances because that was the perceived climate of the day among the urban elites and the press, and the Justices were either all too willing to go with it, or too cowardly to oppose it.
In the next years we might see something like that, but in reverse. As the pressure mounts to put some limit on the senseless genocide, the Supreme Court might, at some point, pick some excuse to do just that, whilst claiming to stay within precedent. In time, when the climate is further improved, Roe vs Wade could be ditched with some other argument picked to hide what the Justices very well know: the times, they are a’ changing’, again.
The Evil Side used this tactics to promote perversion and, at least in other countries, abortion.
I think we should use the same tactics to oppose both perversion and abortion.
I do not know whether this is the beginning of the Age of Sanity, but it seems to me the sure beginning of the Age of Fun: years during which we will see a handful of brave man battling for the return of said sanity.
Take Jeff Sessions, the new (to the Dems wishing the Senate will stop him: keep dreaming…) Attorney General.
This is no Santorum guy, who bends his words everytime it is convenient to get some great prize. This one has the guts to repeat, in front of the very people who must decide whether he is fit for the office, his brutal words concerning Roe vs Wade. Words so brutal, in fact, that they have been picked by his very enemies to try to (in their view) discredit him.
It is good to have an Attorney General like Mr Sessions. The Attorney General is at the head of the law enforcement system, which in the ends puts him in the driving seat if he wants to push serious investigations against, say, Hillary Clinton, Planned Parenthood. He is also the chief lawyer of the US Government, representing it in front of the Supreme Court, again putting him in an influential position by any attempt to dismantle Roe vs Wade.
As you can expect, a massive smear campaign against the man has already started; fuelled by the party of the Jim Crow Laws and Senator Robert Byrd, Ku Klux Klan member kept in the Senate by the Dems for decades.
The problem with such smear campaign is that they have become so trite, so obvious, so predictable thatthey constitute no more than background noise in today’s political debate. Actually, I would be suspicious of any major Trump aid not called “raciss”, or some other such like slur, by the Democrats.
I am fully confident that Jeff Sessions will be the next Attorney General, and an excellent one at that.
The Age of Fun is about to begin.
Alas, the Governor of Oklahoma has vetoed the law making of abortion a felony in most cases. However, the reason seem to be the way the law is formulated – too vague and too open to challenges – rather than the principle in itself. It might be just an excuse, of course. But the sounds are encouraging.
We need this kind of legislative activism. History shows us that constitutional courts all over the West “adapt” their interpretation of the Constitution to the popular mood. If they do it when the results are evil, they can do it when the results are good, too.
Roe vs Wade must be chipped away one piece at a time. It must be put under siege like it's Jerusalem in 1099. The entire US population must be made to see – and cheer – the soldiers and the catapults ready for the attack on the citadel.
At the same time, a favourite tactics of the Liberals should be used: the narrative of inevitability, of a tidal wave coming anyway, of the abortionists being “on the wrong side of history”. Laws made by the representatives of “We, the People” are a very good way on sending this message.
Soon, the perception would be created – and it would not even be wrong – of a Country seeking elementary justice, and stopped by justices stuck in an Evil Era. This is when the right justices will be appointed, and Roe vs Wade will be overturned.
Every legislative activism that works for the right side must be welcomed. The probability of survival in court of such laws are neither here nor there. Perceptions shape reality.
First create the right climate.
The right decisions will follow.
I do not know how good Cardinal Stafford was when he was in active service, but from what I read around one can easily think he was (and is) one of the good guys. The US Cardinal, now 80 years old, has given an interview saying he weeps for his country after the devastations brought by the big societal changes of the Sixties and Seventies, devastations that have left him “deeply disillusioned” and “alienated” from his own country.
The man is actually old enough to personally remember the Fifties and give us all a reminder out of his own life of how big the difference is between a Christian and a secularised Country. He also makes a couple of rather intelligent considerations as to the cult of “freedom” as a founding value in the United States, a concept which can degenerate in the idea that killing unborn babies is in the end a matter of “freedom”. One hears what the Cardinal says, though I would also observe for almost 200 years of the United States’ history this was not the case, so the problem might well lie elsewhere.
It must, though, be saddening and refreshing at the same time for an US Citizen to read of a Cardinal simply looking in dismay at the state his own Country has reduced itself to. It if can be of any help, I can’t say countries like Italy are so much different, though in a way they still are: the militant atheism is still rather absent and most people still have a varnish of Catholicism, but the mentality isn’t so much different and abortion is legal over there, too. The concept that freedom is freedom to do what is good and not freedom to do what one pleases is, for example, rather poorly spread, because the local priest is more likely to talk about social issues.
Kudos for the Cardinal on this occasion, though. We need more like him, and we need them assertive enough as to make it to wider circles than the readers of the “Catholic News Service”.
Lord, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?
How long shall they utter and speak hard things? and all the workers of iniquity boast themselves?
They break in pieces thy people, O Lord, and afflict thine heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger, and murder the fatherless.
Yet they say, The Lord shall not see, neither shall the God of Jacob regard it.
Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise?
He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?
The recurring 40th anniversary of Roe vs Wade is a good way to say a word or two about the pendulum which seems to swing across societal phenomena.
No doubt, when the disgraceful Roe vs Wade ruling was issued, very many thought this was one of those moment of irreversible change, so that the return to a ban for abortion would not be more likely than a return to the horse cart. For some time the facts seemed (seemed only) to agree with them, as abortion became a largely unquestioned part of the landscape in most of the Western world.
At some point, though, the pendulum came to a still stand, and then began to swing in the other direction. It is fair to say it is now in full swing and winning the biological battle, big time. What happened is not only that the abortionists made fewer children, but that more and more people realised (or are in the course of realising) a genocide doesn’t become legitimate only because it happens to be legal.
It took a long time, though, because it always takes time for the lazy cattle we call “electorate” to slowly wake up to reality, the commonly received perception of what other perceive being generally considered a perfectly valid substitute for truth, morality, or even thinking. It took time, but it’s now happening with great impetus, and it won’t be many years until the mass opposition becomes a reality in Western Europe, too. It works, and it works because of people who were not afraid of being in the minority, ostracised, or insulted.
We see the same pattern now at work in the matters of euthanasia and buggery, with the promoters of both trying to depict the change as a generational, epochal swift in perspective, and as irreversible as flying or eating Chinese food. They might well get their Roe vs Wade, and many people (the lazy cattle) will at that point think the world has ” evolved”, and will feel very smug in the process with that feeling of “look at how good I am” the stupid seem unable to live without. When that moment comes, is when we must continue the reaction without waiting for one generation to go by, learning from the abortion issue that nothing is irreversible, least of all abominations going against the most elementary natural instincts like the above mentioned euthanasia and buggery.
We live in times when we must face (never accept, or acquiesce to) the possibility of dying in a world much different from the one we grew into; a world in which the wicked triumph and the just are insulted, persecuted, or worse. We must stay strong and continue our battle, knowing that the one who planted the ear, shall ear…
One day, thinks will begin to improve; if our day comes before that day, perhaps we will be able to attribute our much hoped-for salvation to the battles we had to fight in a hostile environment, the object of mockery and hostility in the very mildest of cases.
As I will never tire to repeat, the greatest contribution to the swinging of the pendulum would come from the Church. But the Church is, if not entirely asleep, certainly slumbering in the drunken stupor of Vatican II, and does not see the dangers accumulating, does not notice the black clouds at the horizon, and does not feel the necessity to start a serious battle now in order, Deo Volente, to avoid a much more difficult one in 10 or 20 years time.
Much sooner, actually, if the likes of Andrew Cuomo get their way.
I am eagerly awaiting for Cardinal Dolan to invite him to some highly publicised dinner.
In the next weeks we are going to not celebrate the 40 anniversary of Roe vs Wade.
If Roe vs Wade were a woman, other women (not men; men do not waste time with such remarks, of course…) would say of her that she thinks herself young, but she is not anymore; that she pretends her best years are in front of her, but her best years are now irretrievably behind her and the decline will soon start to show up in a way she won’t be able to hide; that her increased effort to hide with makeup the irresistible work of time is becoming increasingly less credible, and that from now on the way can only be down. When the vain lady (would the women say, provided they use the word “lady”) begins to go down the slope of Botox treatment and other extreme ways to try to stay young, everyone will know the game is up, and the way to decay wide open.
I am a man and would, erm, never dare to make such unappreciative remarks concerning a member of the gentler sex; but I will, hopefully, be allowed to say that in the case of Roe vs Wade remarks of the sort are pretty fitting.
Even casual observers have by now noticed the turning of the tide. Whilst Roe vs Wade is still in place, enjoying that particular degree of protection afforded by a sentence of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is not difficult to see the pro-choice soldiers look rather like the Wehrmacht during D-Day: still officially in charge of France, but massively under attack and knowing resistance will be possible only to a point.
Most decisively, the child murderers’ fraction has lost the generational battle, and has lost it big: abortionists tend to make far fewer children, people with basic human decency far more; the former must explain to their children that they would have considered it right to kill them in the womb, nay, that they would have considered it a mere ” health issue” as if the child were a nasty excrescence; the latter can simply introduce their children to the sacredness of human life and the God-given (have I said pro-lifers tend to believe in God in bigger numbers?) miracle of life.
Then there is the issue of family: if your mother couldn’t keep his husband home and keeps introducing you to increasingly more desperate old men, and your father goes around talking about his “emotional needs” when revealing to you at 67 he truly needed a new “girlfriend”, who by the way happens to be far younger than his former girlfriend (of course, your mother disappeared from the picture when you were still young) are you really going to consider their advice in matter of abortion more than their opinion in matters of marriage?
So, Roe vs Wade now celebrates its 40 birthday with the same “fake happy” hysteria of some oldish ladies we all have known. The lady being unquestionably American one can see the first Botox treatment coming, and the first Botox will clearly call for the second, and at some point the surgeon’s scalpel will be seen as the last, short-lived hope. She will be a pathetic mess before she thinks, our Mrs Roe vs Wade, and at that point nothing will be able to save her from ignominious, very public decay.
Pro-lifers remind me, instead, of those other women (we all have them around us, thankfully) who know how to get old gracefully, and to whom age and loving cares have given that particular kind of beauty old age can, if one has lived rightly, carry with it. She might well die before the Roe vs Wade lady, but she will have been graced by a gentle ageing, and a waiting for the day legal abortion will be erased from the face of Western civilisation and relegated to the madness of a past full of the terrors of evil minds like Adolf Hitler’s and Margaret Sanger’s. Again, she might not live to see the day, and the evil Mrs Roe vs Wade might still bury a lot of gracefully aged women. But what a difference in their lives, in their ageing, and in their death.
Ladies like Roe vs Wade never age, or die, well. “Her” death will be a long and painful process, sprinkled with occasional renewed hopes in the medical progress, and eventually defied by the working of nature; then, like Botox and the scalpel of the cosmetic surgeon, abortion simply flies in the face of nature, and of common sense.
From The Democratic Platform
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right
From the Republican Platform
Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
On the 8 November, the voters of Mississippi will be able to vote on the possibility of granting “personhood” to the unborn child, with the consequences you can easily imagine. Basically, one would be a person for the law before being born, with all the protection of the case.
Mississippi being one of the most pro-life States of the US the proposal might well win, and the fact that both major parties support the initiative speaks volumes about the general climate. I wish the initiative all the best.
Surprisingly, a good number of pro-lifers do not support the initiative. The train of thoughts is that this legislative measure will be challenged, probably up to the Supreme Court, where liberals and assorted perverts will take care that Roe vs Wade is confirmed, thus making the battle more difficult.
I struggle to follow the logic. The argument reminds me of those priests saying to us in the Eighties that the Church only fights the battles she can easily win, because to be seen as losing battles damages her reputation and influence in the country. So they prefer to shut up and lose quietly in order not to be seen to have lost openly. Congratulations.
It seems obvious to me that the overturning of Roe vs Wade will not happen without a long, excruciating conflict, dividing the country in the most painful of ways; unless, of course, one is ready to wait for the death of the Sixty-Eighters, with several millions babies killed in the meantime. I cannot see any way of getting Roe vs Wade out of the way without great conflict; the possible confirmation of Roe vs Wade by the above-mentioned liberals and perverts would only exacerbate this conflict and, very possibly, lead to the appointment of other and better judges in due time. Either way, it won’t happen without people noticing, so we had better let them notice now.
As I see it, on the 8 November something huge might happen; something that – irrespective of the probability of survival of such measure in the shirt-ish term – points out to a slow but more and more marked shift in the popular feelings, and to a clear re-adjustment of the debate’s coordinates.
In my opinion, you win wars by fighting them bravely, not by hoping to win without the enemy’s opposition.
I truly hope that on the 8 November a huge cry will rise from Mississippi’s families:
Bring it on!