By DEXTER DUGGAN
New York’s Empire State Building was completed 88 years ago and, at 102 stories, once was the world’s tallest building. Getting close to a century old now, it was soundly built. Its foundation wasn’t 50 toothpicks stuck into quicksand. Aside from the possibility of twenty-first century terrorism, there are no frequent alerts that the skyscraper is about to collapse.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s astounding invention of national permissive abortion through Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton in January 1973 is getting close to a half-century old. Warnings of their dangerous instability and possible collapse are frequent. That’s because this trickery has no trustworthy foundation, only hocus-pocus.
As one of the two dissenting justices, Byron White, said at the time, this was an exercise of “raw judicial power.” This was not constitutional interpretation, or even the pretense of it. This was cooking up a toxic stew that should have gone straight from the stove to the garbage can. Power exercised and maintained by deception and arrogance has no safe foundation at all.
Justice Harry Blackmun and his colleagues pretended that the Founders in the late eighteenth century had devised explicit, detailed instructions in the Constitution requiring national permissive abortion.
These mandates, however, had remained hidden for nearly two centuries. When they finally were unearthed by the court in the latter twentieth century like some ancient Egyptian tomb, not only did they miraculously coincide with the state of abortion techniques in 1973, but they foreclosed any serious medical development beyond that era. No new perinatology, no 4D ultrasonography.
Even more wondrous than the court’s pretensions on the pro-abortion side has been the amazing slowness to take fitting action on the other side. True, the national pro-life movement quickly had to take form to respond to the court’s aggression, and before long pro-lifers were showing unexpected clout.
But for nearly a half century one might think their response has been inadequate if they truly believed that Roe and Doe had led to tens of millions of innocent preborn babies being slaughtered. And not only with no end in sight now, but with even further aggression — of abortion into the fourth trimester, and removing legally required care from abortion survivors.
Atrocities that the law wouldn’t allow against dogs and cats, and certainly not against “protected species,” routinely were used by Big, Brutal Abortion and lauded by its media acolytes against defenseless human babies.
However, not only were some pro-life states pushing back against legal abortion even in the first trimester as the U.S. potentially moved toward a new civil war, but also some towns were declaring themselves sanctuaries against abortion for preborn babies.
Riverton, Utah, Roswell, N.M., and Waskom, Texas, were among those taking early action to declare themselves sanctuaries. A Texas pro-life activist told KLTV in Tyler, Texas, that he was being contacted by other officials thinking of doing the same. The ABC-TV affiliate reported that Mark Lee Dickson said “he’s been contacted by both residents and officials from cities across East Texas and the country.”
The Salt Lake Tribune posted a commentary by pro-life physician and writer Ryan Phillips on May 18 about the Riverton resolution. Phillips wrote: “Even though no laws were passed, this resolution is more than just hollow words and empty platitudes. It is a line in the sand. A statement. This type of formal endorsement from elected officials carries weight.
“It brings attention to the movement,” Phillips added. “It gets people talking. It motivates the community to get involved. It emboldens those who believe in the cause but may have been sitting quietly on the sidelines. . . .
“Roswell, N.M., recently passed a similar resolution, and more cities are sure to follow,” he wrote at the Utah news site. “Great movements in human history do not happen overnight. History is replete with examples of significant changes that were the culmination of methodical, determined, and persistent grassroots movements.”
John Jakubczyk, a Phoenix attorney and a former president of Arizona Right to Life, told The Wanderer on June 17: “I think this is an effort by many to try and make it clear that they do not support abortion, that they are in favor of life, and this is another means to make this statement.
“It also acts as a way to promote more pro-life sentiment, by having a decision in the various communities,” Jakubczyk added. “Finally, it is an example of pro-life activism at the grassroots.”
Ending The Genocide
Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard told The Wanderer on June 17: “As I understand it, the value is entirely symbolic. We are used to the term ‘sanctuary cities’ in the context of local authorities refusing to enforce federal immigration law, refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, and sometimes extending taxpayer-funded benefits to those here illegally.
“For sanctuary cities for the unborn, there is no change in the laws regarding abortion and there are no changes to the access to abortion. These are basically resolutions, or written speeches, instead of laws,” he said. “So they will not save lives in and of themselves, but they do demonstrate that there are communities that value life, and the more vocal the pro-life community is, the sooner we can eventually end this genocide.”
Although one may see articles declaring, for instance, that “the American people” believe in first-trimester abortion, for decades dominant media have pounded home a message favoring permissive abortion usually in propagandistic lockstep.
What the American people actually believe on loose abortion can be determined only after they’re given adequate, consistent information that long has been lacking. Debates about having sanctuary cities to protect the preborn can be one of these educational avenues.
However, northern California conservative commentator Barbara Simpson told The Wanderer on June 17 that having sanctuary cities for the preborn “accomplishes nothing.”
“On the surface, the idea of anti-abortion sanctuary cities will make some people feel good but what they are doing accomplishes nothing,” Simpson said. “Unless (or until) we find ourselves in a position of facing ‘forced abortion, decided by the government,’ a sanctuary city concerning abortion means simply that you won’t be forced to have one.
“But that’s where we are now — you won’t be forced to have one, but you can have one if that’s what you want,” she said. ”Better to put energies behind outlawing abortion totally rather than trying to ‘get back’ at liberals who love the idea of ‘sanctuary cities’ for illegals. That’s another issue entirely.
“Unfortunately, this is just a word game that will accomplish nothing except exhaust people,” Simpson said.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress