Seek His Face and Earn His Grace

by Diane Rufino

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?  Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”    —  Thomas Jefferson

What is happening in the US?  Are we turning away from God, as many claim, or are we witnessing just the opposite?  Are we seeing the error of our ways and turning towards Him?

Are we, as a nation, witnessing a Christian restoration or an atheist transformation?

I think the answer is that both forces are engaged in a great struggle.  The progressive nature of our courts combined with the misinterpretation of our Bill of Rights, as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, and combined with the enormous power of the liberal media have allowed the atheist movement to have greater force than it deserves.  To counter that movement, Christians and Christian organizations must fight against incredible odds, most notably the courts, the “wall of separation,” and the liberally-biased media.  It comes as no surprise that our government and the “establishment” is harboring an increasing hostility towards faith.  Yet the Christian resistance is growing.

We’ve taken God out of our schools and out of our seats of government.  We’ve removed crosses and other Christian symbols from public squares and from national cemeteries. We’ve perverted the meaning of the First Amendment with a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution – the “Wall of Separation” – so that we can systematically remove important and traditional human values from society and avoid expensive lawsuits.  The First  Amendment was not written to protect people and their laws from religious values but rather it was written to protect those values from government and government tyranny.  We’ve watched as a Culture of Immorality has enveloped the country starting with the counter-culture revolution of the 1960s and are suffering from its natural consequences.  Yet churches are growing larger. In 1973, the Supreme Court announced that women can kill their unborn under the constitutional protection of “privacy,” but 39 years later, the pro-life voice grows louder and stronger.

We have a huge segment of society benefitting from the hard work, property, and taxation of others.  About 50% of Americans are being used to support the other 50% in a lifestyle that the government continues to redefine and upgrade.  This is institutionalized sloth and envy — two of the Christian mortal sins.  Some say it is the new form of slavery.  Indeed, every person who benefits from the effort and property of another is himself a petty tyrant and a slave master. Yet as the entitlement ranks increase, the outrage against such human decay builds and people are urging a return to the policies of ethics, morality, and personal responsibility. As long as people can embrace these values, there is the hope of earned success and human dignity.

We have a president who wants ever so strongly to have government compel religious groups to provide birth control and abortion services – services that so fundamentally offend religious principles and offend our constitutionally protected Right of Religious Conscience – to further the agenda of Women’s Rights.  But instead, our country realized that a line had been crossed and the president was forced to retreat from his policy. The fight of gays and lesbians for the right to marry may cause many, particularly our unprincipled youth, to argue “Why Not?” but it causes countless others to re-connect with their religious values.

So, is it possible we are witnessing a Christian revival?

Those who came to America’s shores did so under an apparent covenant with God.  As Governor John Winthrop pledged in 1630 on board the Arbella, which set out for America’s shores:

“Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.

Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.

And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deuteronomy 30. “Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil,” in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.

Therefore let us choose life, that we and our seed may live, by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him, for He is our life and our prosperity.”

Puritan and Pilgrim colonies, for example, were established in furtherance of that covenant.  They felt the blessings of God and they believed in their mission. If they hadn’t believed so strongly, they would have never been able to make the incredible sacrifices they did so that the early colonies could take root and flourish. Sickness, death, hardship, and starvation plagued our early religious settlers.  At one point, almost every family lost at least one family member.  Yet they understood that to whom much is given, much would be required.

Likewise, our Founding Fathers could never have embraced the concepts of ordered liberty, natural law, and fundamental freedoms had their hearts and minds not been shaped and affected by religious principles. They wrote many Judeo-Christian principles into our founding documents and into our laws: the equality of men, justice, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, the criminal justice system, and others.  Thomas Jefferson, the Founder who gave us individual liberties and articulated the role and boundaries of government, wrote this on the inside of his bible:  “I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

Patrick Henry, whose fiery speeches rallied the country to independence from Britain, wrote in 1777:  ”It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”  Acknowledging our war for independence, the sixth president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, offered these sentiments on the 4th of July in 1821: “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

During the Constitutional Convention someone raised the question: “When does a nation answer to God?”  In the notes he took during the discussions and debates, George Madison recorded the reply that was given by George Mason: “Nations can’t be judged in the hereafter as people, so Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” Even Benjamin Franklin concluded “We need God to be our friend, not our adversary.”

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: “We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”  Speaking to the military, John Adams spoke these words: “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”  George Washington, in his farewell address as our first president, on September 19, 1796 warned: “It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion……  Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” And Calvin Coolidge, our thirtieth president, noted this in his writings: “The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country.”

Americans have supported more missionary and evangelistic efforts than any other people in history. There are churches – many of them – in virtually every community. We have “In God We Trust” on our money (while it still lasts) and we pledge allegiance to our “One Nation Under God.” (also while it still lasts).

The United States is a unique and special country, for many reasons. One reason is it’s foundation on God.  Like Israel, the US is unique in that it was conceived and dedicated at its foundation for the purposes of serving God.  It would be a vessel of redemption, an instrument of God’s will, and a light to the world.  It would give refuge to the world’s poor and needy, and hope to the oppressed. It would stand against tyranny.  In return, it would be blessed by God.  It would  be powerful and prosperous, but most of all, it would be protected.  It would be protected by a shield of grace.

And indeed we were.  We enjoyed security and prosperity for many years.  Our shores brought friends and new citizens, but not enemies.

But we turned from that early covenant and now America doesn’t seem as blessed as we once were.  We’ve lost our heart and soul.  We’ve lost our direction.  We’ve abandoned our “covenant” to serve God.  Our government has incrementally and systematically removed God from the fiber of America. It began in 1947, with the “Wall of Separation” decision (Everson v. Board of Education) but went into high gear in the 60′s.  Crime is now rampant, the family is disintegrating, teens are promiscuous, homosexuality is on the rise, children are being taught to accept alternative lifestyles, the homosexual agenda is in high gear,  parents don’t “parent,” schools spend more time “managing” student behavior than teach proper communication skills and other valuable content material, we use abortion as birth control and kill our unborn, we assume no personal responsibility because we are all “entitled,” personal decay is at its highest, our children are assaulted by immorality from every direction, communities are fractured, national security is a joke, we have no reason to trust our  unethical government, we are constrained by our government rather than thrive under it, our workforce is decimated, and we have never felt so deprived of the freedoms guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence.”  We probably felt a wake-up call (I know I did) on 9/11 when our once “blessed” and impenetrable country was ruthlessly attacked by an evil enemy, just as Israel, also once “blessed” and sheltered by a hedge of protection, was also ruthlessly attacked in 721 B.C. by the Assyrians. The protective hand of Providence had always kept us safe and secure and guided us to moral victories, but on 9/11 (after many years of “immoral” victories in the Supreme Court), His Hand was noticeably absent.  3000 innocent lives perished for the sins of our nation.

What struck me about the site of the 9/11 attack was that George Washington took the oath as our nation’s first president at that very location.  In 1789, he took that oath in New York City, near Wall Street in lower Manhattan.  President Washington, who urged that the two most important pillars of good government are religion and morality, was just the type of leader to lead a nation conceived by God and worthy of His blessings.  But 212 years later, with religion out of our schools and out of public life, and with the government and the courts growing ever hostile to the rights of conscience, no President could put a faithful face to a faithless nation.

Because government has become a leviathan and the courts its retarded sister (in too many cases), big brother has far too much to say about what goes on in every aspect of American life.  And that means that elected officials and other government employees are the ones ruling our lives and running our affairs. At such a time, when the character and integrity of our elected officials should matter most, we find that in fact, it seems to matter least.  We saw this mostly clearly with President Clinton, who remained ever so popular even though he cheated on his wife, abused the office of the presidency, lied under oath, and embarrassed the nation. We saw this again with President Obama, who sat in a church for years and listened to the hateful tirades of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the man he considered his “spiritual leader” and worthy enough to perform his wedding and baptize his daughters.

Our Founding Fathers believed that each citizen was accountable to God, his fellow citizens, and his country to elect only those leaders faithful to religious principles and high moral standards.  Our forefathers believed that this was the duty of a true patriot. Noah Webster wrote: “When a citizen gives his suffrage (vote) to a man of known immorality he abuses his civil responsibility; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.”

Unfortunately, today we are under the mindset that what is done in one’s private life is a private matter and it shouldn’t influence our view of a leader’s ability to serve in a public office. Religious principle and moral standards are no longer an integral part of our nation’s political process. Immoral leaders fill the halls of Congress, sit in the Oval Office, sit on our court benches, and in general saturate our political landscape, both federal and state. This has resulted in the moral decay of America’s political process, her laws and her judiciary.

As Mitt Romney spoke in his commencement address to Liberty University last week, what defines a nation is the character of her citizens.  He spoke these words:

“You enter a world with civilizations and economies that are far from equal.  Harvard historian David Landes devoted his lifelong study to understanding why some civilizations rise, and why others falter.  His conclusion:  Culture makes all the difference.  Not natural resources, not geography, but what people believe and value. Central to America’s rise to global leadership is our Judeo-Christian tradition, with its vision of the goodness and possibilities of every life. The American culture promotes personal responsibility, the dignity of work, the value of education, the merit of service, devotion to a purpose greater than self, and, at the foundation, the pre-eminence of the family.  The power of these values is evidenced by a Brookings Institution study that Senator Rick Santorum brought to my attention.  For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2%.  But, if those things are absent, 76% will be poor.  Culture matters.

The protection of religious freedom has also become a matter of debate.  It strikes me as odd that the free exercise of religious faith is sometimes treated as a problem, something America is stuck with instead of blessed with.  Perhaps religious conscience upsets the designs of those who feel that the highest wisdom and authority comes from government.  But from the beginning, this nation trusted in God, not man.  Religious liberty is the first freedom in our Constitution.  And whether the cause is justice for the persecuted, compassion for the needy and the sick, or mercy for the child waiting to be born, there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action.

Religious freedom opens a door for Americans that is closed to too many others around the world.  But whether we walk through that door, and what we do with our lives after we do, is up to us.”

Unbridled immoral leaders advance immoral laws and defeat moral ones. Consider the following examples of federal and state policy, laws and/or bills, or court decisions:  Abortion rights (and the lack of rights of the unborn), Refusal to enforce DOMA (federal Defense of Marriage Act), Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ie, Obamacare), the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (which legislators did not pass), Sodomy is a fundamental right, refusal to acknowledge the National Day of Prayer from the White House, and California law AB1785 (which requires pro-homosexual tolerance education at all public schools and all grade levels, including kindergarten, and provides taxpayer funded grants to take children on field trips to teach them diversity and tolerance of homosexuality;  Massachusetts has a similar situation) – among others!  [Massachusetts and California articles attached in reference section].

In 1892, in the case Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court declared that we are a Christian nation.  Justice Brewer, writing the opinion for the Court, stated: “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of The Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian… This is a Christian nation.”

But quickly, our leaders have bowed to pressure from groups intent on destroying our heritage. In 1962, prayer was removed from public schools [Engel v. Vitale; "Prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State"].  In 1963. Bible readings were forbidden in schools [Abington School District v. Schempp;  "No state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in public schools or a State at the beginning of each school day."  The court went on to say, "If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and ...had been psychologically harmful to the student."   The case was brought by atheist activist, Madeline Murray O'Hare, who founded American Atheists and in 1964 was referred to by Life Magazine as "The Most Hated Woman in America."  How proud she must have been to earn that title.  In 1980, the Ten Commandments were ordered to be removed so that students could not view them [Stone v. Graham; "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effects at all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments... and this is not a permissible state objective under the Establishment Clause."  But the teaching of alternative lifestyle choices and encouraging the acceptance of homosexuality is a permissible state objective?  And beginning in 1985, various benedictions, prayers, and invocations were removed from school ceremonies and activities [Graham v. Central, 1985; Kay v. Douglas, 1986; Jager v. Douglas, 1989; Lee v. Weisman, 1992; "The School district was properly prohibited from including invocation in commencement exercise because religious invocation in high school commencement exercise conveyed the message that the district had given its endorsement to prayer and religion.."]  I have even read that public schools have been barred from showing a film about the settlement of Jamestown because the film depicts the erection of a cross at the settlement, even though that detail is historically accurate. What is it about the image of a cross that causes students so much distress?  Or perhaps the more pertinent question we need to ask federal judges is this: “What is more important to Americans – to learn actual American history so that they can appreciate the country and the rights and values they have inherited or to be spared some miniscule discomfort at seeing a cross?”

Likewise, prayer, religious symbols, nativity scenes, etc. have been removed from public life as well.  Even the Ten Commandments have been ordered from courthouses and crosses barred from national burial grounds.  Most recently, I heard on the news that atheists want the term “So Help Me God” removed from the WWII Memorial in Washington DC.  These words were spoken, with heartfelt sincerity, by our leaders at that time. But history now must show no record that they were ever uttered.  To the God who inspired and blessed America, our great leaders made promises to defend her, but history can never reflect those truths.  History must not record that our leaders once appealed to God for guidance, wisdom, protection, and even an advantage against a ruthless and barbaric enemy.  Are we now a nation of hypocrites?

Where was God in World War II?  Here is what one “old soldier” wrote, after looking at the walls of the WWII Memorial in DC:

“As I stood before the wall of the World War II Memorial, I was sure all the other vets were thinking as I was. I saw more than a wall with stars on it. I saw men — real men — whom these stars represented.

Many of them had been raised on a farm, knew what hard work was and knew what it meant to sacrifice. Most of these men had never left the comfort of their homes.

I saw young men who tried hard to show pride; but in their hearts there were tears. These young men were leaving weeping mothers and proud but heartbroken fathers. Some of them were leaving a young wife and a small girl, not knowing whether he would hold either of them in his arms again.

These young men were leaving for places they had only heard of in history books. As country boys, they were trading in hunting guns for guns they would use against the enemy.  Hard times had not only taught them how to shoot but how to bear the burdens that would be placed upon them. Leaving with tears (though they might not have admitted it), they would board a train to places unknown.

My mind went beyond the wall to the beaches and the young men floating on the water. They had been slain by an enemy they had never seen.

I look beyond this wall and see thousands of soldiers loaded, like cattle, aboard ships headed for an island unknown to them. They knew soon that many of them would never return to the ship. Let me ask you. What kind of a night would you have had if you were told, “Tomorrow we hit the beach”?

Many wrote their last letters home. How do I know this? I know this because I was there, telling each one of them about God. God could make their hearts right before they died.

Beyond this wall, I see cold, wet men in their foxholes, trying to get a little shut-eye before the battle resumed. I see a young sailor standing on the top deck looking out in the dark night thousands of miles from home, with tears in his eyes. I imagine him thinking of his loved ones back home.

I turn my mind to the Pacific, and feel the heat bearing down. Standing on the bow of a ship, I have the last word for a mother’s son before he is placed in a body bag and cast overboard.

Look over the wall with me and think of the 400,000 men who gave their lives for the liberty you now enjoy. If it had not been for these men and God’s grace, you would be living as servants to another nation. In fact, the whole world would be.

As I look over this wall, I hear bombs falling, machine guns firing and shells lighting up the night sky. All of this was preparing the enemy for an attack.

Children and parents, when you see these old men trudging along the way, have respect for them, for they are all that is left of the 16 million men who helped give you the freedom you now have. When you are enjoying life, know that it was these men and the grace of God that gave your joyful life to you.

Please do not let 400,000 men die in vain.

Yes, this is what an old sailor saw as he looked over the wall. The experiences of World War II will never be wiped from our minds. More than 70 years have passed, yet it is just as clear now as it was then.

Pray for America. Stand for America. If you have to fight, don’t be afraid to fight for her. God bless America, the land that I love.”    [Mr. J.B. Stonecypher]

God was with our greatest generation to give them comfort and to give them the courage they needed to fight an evil which they feared might one day reach America’s shores and destroy her liberties.  They fought for their loved ones, their children, their unborn, and even for total strangers.  They fought for that ideal that was America.  With God, our brave young men understood that death was not final and that there would be life eternal, and so for many, it was that lesson gave them the comfort and encouragement to fight on.  This man, Mr. J.B. Stonecypher, has seen firsthand the great war machine that is the United States.  He has seen our great tanks, planes, and weaponry.  He knows our military leaders receive the best training.  Yet to this day, 70 years after World War II, he still encourages us to pray for America and to ask God to bless us.  Why?  Because he knows that military might alone is not enough to keep us safe and strong.

It’s hard-pressed these days to view America as a Christian nation. Political processes, greed, and other human ambitions run the government….  not righteousness. Gratification and pleasure motivate people, not righteousness. Legal precedent and clever ambitious liberal lawyers determine justice, not righteousness. The heart of the people determines the heart of the nation and Americans focus more on self than on God.  The ambitions of Americans determine the ambitions of the nation, and Americans focus more on material wealth, comfort, and advanced technology than they do on the promotion of religious and moral values. America is a secular nation, based on some Christian principles. But here is the rub.  It is a secular nation based on some Christian principles, but it contains an overwhelming number of Christian citizens (at least 85%). What are American Christians doing?  Clearly they are failing to heed the word of their Lord.  There will be Christians in America as long as there are Christians in the world, but by all outward signals, America has ceased to be a Christian nation.

As most people know, Christianity took hold when the Roman Empire, under Diocletian and Constantine, ordered the purge of Godlessness from its empire starting about 280 A.D. and incorporated religion into government.  From that time on, man’s plight in the world was made easier when ruled by governments that  were based on biblical principles.  Our Supreme Court is doing everything it can to make sure that isn’t the case here in the United States.  It is making sure that we see no trace of religion in our government.  Our nation has appeared to do a complete turn-around.  Now it is God who is being purged from the government and Godlessness championed in His place.  Now, “godlessness” is our nation’s highest principle, our highest priority.  To be clear, it is our government’s highest principle and priority and not the intent or will of the people.  Indeed, if government and the courts were to listen to the will of the people (and confine itself to the strict guidelines of the Constitution), we would still feel the influence of religious values and principles in our government and in our laws.

To be a Christian nation, we must acknowledge Christianity and its role in our founding and we must manifest Christian values.  But do we?

“America tolerates the killing of our unborn children and calls it ‘freedom of choice.’  America tolerates cultivation of humans to harvest stem cells and calls it ‘research.’  America tolerates homosexual perversions and calls it ‘diversity and alternative lifestyles.’  America tolerates paganism and immoral life styles and calls it ‘multiculturalism.’  America tolerates the killing of the elderly and the ill among us and calls it ‘compassion.’  America tolerates religious cults that deny God and calls it ‘denominationalism.’  America tolerates pornography and exploitation of women and children and calls it ‘art.’  America tolerates vile and filthy brainwashing of our children and calls it ‘entertainment.’  America tolerates God’s Holy Name being blasphemed and calls it ‘freedom of speech.’  America tolerates taking of innocent life, and theft of property and calls it our ‘justice’ system.  America tolerates everything except God.”   [http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/america/warned.htm]  Yet conservative groups are fighting back.

The Israelites, God’s ‘chosen people,’ also had turned from God.  In fact, they did it over and over again. Israel believed its status as God’s chosen people would protect it from hardship and destruction. They believed that God would never allow anything to happen to their nation. They believed that up until the moment they were conquered. And while the nation of Israel has been re-forged, look at the suffering and inhumanity exacted on the Jews before that prophecy could become a reality. Similarly, many fear that  Americans will make the same mistake.  They fear that Americans will sit back, make their 1-hour-per-week sacrifice to attend Church, and rest assured that God will protect our country because of our Christian heritage. They can’t imagine that God would ever allow anything to happen to America.

But they are neglecting to read their Bible. They are ignorant of history. The Revelation is looming.

One principle in scripture is abundantly clear:  the Law of Accountability. This spiritual law says that  to whom much is given, much is demanded. (Luke 12:48). God has blessed America abundantly throughout our history but now we are taking that blessing for granted.  Perhaps we have all adopted that poisonous “entitlement” mentality which is quickly destroying our American spirit. This “entitlement” mentality tells us that we are entitled to His blessing because we are a “good” nation – we help the poor within our borders and help sick, impoverished, and oppressed persons all over the world.  We don’t feel we need to “earn” that blessing.  As a nation, we have clearly turned our back on Him, making policies and laws that are plainly anti-God, and then embracing political correctness so as to avoid offending any single person having a different belief or no belief at all.  Unfortunately, the attitudes and lifestyles of many Christians in America are indistinguishable from those of non-Christians. We cannot expect God to continue blessing and protecting our nation unless Christian Americans radically turn back to God and actively serve Him.

Scripture warns that God will end the blessings he has bestowed on the world (the so-called “Year of Favor”; Isaiah 61:1-2) and the “day of vengeance” will begin.  This “day of vengeance” will occur when Christ’s offer of reconciliation is spurned by a revolt of the people and their governments. According to prophecy, this is exactly what will happen.  See John 3:19: “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” That revolt brings the tribulation and then Judgment.  Furthermore, prophecy teaches us: “But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s Word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.  By the same Word, the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the Day of Judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”  (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Are those events set in motion?  Jonathan Cahn wrote a book entitled “The Harbinger” which suggests that they might.  Cahn studied ancient scripture and noted how God’s judgment on Israel played out (732 B.C.; Isaiah 9:10).  He noted a series of uncanny similarities – the same warnings and events – taking place in America since the attack of 9/11.  He wrote: “Before its end as a nation, there appeared in ancient Israel a series of specific omens and signs warning its people of destruction.  These same warning signs (harbingers) are now manifesting in America and have profound ramifications for her future and end-time prophecy.”

When judgment came to Israel (see Is. 9:10), God’s people had turned to other gods and were even sacrificing their children to these false idols!  We, in the US, worship material things and we’ve killed more than 54 million of our unborn children—and the similarities do not end there. We’ve banned God’s Ten Commandments from our public schools and government buildings; we don’t want public prayers in Jesus’ name; we condemn public Bible reading and have mocked God in almost every way. As the Reverend Jim Bakker says: “Yet we have the audacity to sing “God Bless America”?  But why should He?

When over 90% of the U.S. population is religious and at least 85% of those persons are Christian, we wonder if the blame lies with those who claim to be religious.  Perhaps it is time to pull out the stops and put creed into deed.  Perhaps we need to remember that “to whom much is given, much is required.”  And that includes eternal vigilance and a willingness to serve the Lord from Whom so many blessings flow.  The atheist agenda must not be allowed to prevail. Earthly values must not be allowed to replace God’s values. Christians can no longer afford to be the silent majority.  We can no longer accept laws promoting immorality or activist judicial decisions which continue to define us as a godless society with a godless government.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, founder of the Confessing Church (created to defy the Hitler’s attempt to establish a Nazi church) referred to the obligations of Christians.  He talked about “cheap grace” and “costly grace.”  The grace he refers to is that unmerited mercy (favor) that God gave to us by sending his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross so that we might have eternal salvation.

Cheap grace means grace without cost… without sacrifice. It is easy grace.  The essence of cheap grace is that the bill has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing, without having to ‘earn’ it. It is the kind which can be summed up as follows: “My only duty as a Christian is to put my life on hold for about an hour or so on a Sunday morning to go to church. In that way, I can be assured that my sins are all forgiven.”  Cheap grace is the reason, perhaps, that we have a weakness that pervades our religious culture.

Costly grace, on the other hand, is the grace which must be earned over and over again. The gift of the crucifixion must be earned. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. The call to discipleship is not easy and will likely bring pain and suffering. It is costly because it requires obedience, and it could ultimately cost a man those things that are important to him, including his life. It is premised on the notion that man’s salvation was “bought at a price” and that which cost God so much cannot be cheap for us. Jesus wants us to be integral members of the Church and minister God’s word and teach God’s lessons in word and by deed.  We are expected to live our lives as examples of our faith.

It was the rise of the Nazi regime, the systematic suspension of human liberties, the round-up and internment of ‘political dissenters,’ and the genocidal policy against the Jews that helped Bonhoeffer understand the obligations that Christians have in this world.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born to a wealthy and educated family and enjoyed a privileged childhood. He studied theology and completed his doctoral thesis when he was only 21 years of age.  He spent time in the churches of Harlem as part of a postdoctoral and teaching fellowship, studying the role of religion for those who suffer oppression. He then rose to fame in the 1930′s with his writings and his radio sermons. Bonhoeffer’s rise to fame ran parallel to Hitler’s rise to power.  He quickly became a strong anti-Nazi.  He immediately understood that Hitler and his national socialist (Nazi) ideology represented a grave threat to Germans, to Christianity, to the Jews, and to western civilization. For once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany.  After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party.  He then began the nazification of the protestant churches of Germany, which included the following changes:  (1)  Hitler and not Christ would be the head of the church; (2)  Printing and dissemination of the Bible would immediately cease; (3)  There would be no crucifixes or Bibles allowed on the alters; (4)  The only thing allowed on the alter would be a copy of Mein Kampf ;  (5) The Christian Cross would be removed from all churches and replaced by the swastika; and (6) The Nazi policies against the Jews would apply to the church.

In a radio address he gave in February, 1933 Bonhoeffer denounced Hitler and denounced his fellow Germans for accepting a corrupt and inhumane leader. He established a new church, the Confessing Church, as an organized Christian opposition to the Nazi government. He publicly denounced Hitler and the Nazi regime and in particular, the attacks on the church.

Although Bonhoeffer spent a great deal of time living in England, safe from harm, he understood that he could not in good conscience “participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people.” And so he returned to Germany in 1939 to take up the struggle against the Nazi menace. He not only took part in efforts to transport Jews to safety but he and his brother willingly took part in plans to assassinate Hitler.  He probably understood that taking on Hitler would likely lead to his death, but yet he was compelled to serve and later to participate in assassination attempts on the Fuhrer’s life (all of which were unsuccessful).   He was ultimately arrested in 1943 after evidence was collected of his complicity in the assassination attempts (and also for his aiding in the escape of a number of Jews from Germany to Switzerland), and sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp. He was then moved to the Flossenburg concentration camp and on April 8, 1945, with Allied troops only two weeks from liberating his prison, he was executed on Hitler’s orders.

We may not all believe that God calls us to earn His Grace, including a willingness to give one’s life, as Bonhoeffer believed, but perhaps he does ask for Christians to do more than simply attend church once each week and to remain meek and silent while evil lurks and grows in this country which He established for us and has blessed us with.  If indeed God established this country on His law and for His noble purposes, then maybe He expects us to defend those truths.  Mitt Romney spoke these words in his speech to Liberty University: “Christianity is not the faith of the complacent, the comfortable or of the timid. It demands and creates heroic souls like Wesley, Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer, John Paul the Second, and Billy Graham. Each showed, in their own way, the relentless and powerful influence of the message of Jesus Christ.”

Ronald Reagan once said (1986): “To preserve our blessed land we must look to God… It is time to realize that we need God more than He needs us… We also have His promise that we could take to heart with regard to our country, that ‘If my people, which are called by my name shall humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.’ (II Chronicles 7:14)  Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step, in humble heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always. The time has come to turn to God and reassert our trust in Him for the healing of America… Our country is in need of and ready for a spiritual renewal. Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. If I had a prayer for you today, among those that have all been uttered, it is that one we’re so familiar with: “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you; the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace….” And God bless you all.”

Today we face the same enemy that crippled ancient Rome — moral decay. Yet it is so much more.  We are intentionally, almost willingly, turning from God, even though we are indeed a nation of Christians. We are indeed in need of a great spiritual revival.  And we may have already started one.  But we need to step it up in order “to heal our land” and save it from the forces that are getting dangerously close to destroying her.  Romney is right.  It is the character of the American people which will save or condemn our country.

For the sake of the land that we love, we Americans must rise from where we have fallen, turn from our evil ways, repent from our sins, and again seek His face and earn His grace.  Only then can we ask for His blessings or expect them.   And in this age of national discontent and growing world hostility, we are going to need them.

References:
Jonathan Cahn, The Harbinger, 2012, Frontline Publishers.  [Also see http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/jonathan_Cahn_010312.aspx ]

John Winthrop, “A Model of Christian Charity”  (Winthrop’s most famous thesis, written on board the Arbella, 1630.   Referenced at:  http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/charity.html

Bob Unruh, ” Judge Orders ‘Gay’ Agenda Taught to Christian Children” (in Massachusetts), WND, February 24, 2007.  Referenced at:  http://www.wnd.com/2007/02/40339/

Brian Camenker, “What Same-sex Marriage Has Done to Massachusetts,” Mass Resistance, October 20, 2008.   Referenced at:  http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Kathleen Gilbert, “Mandatory Homosexual Indoctrination in Grade School Survives after Supreme Court Turns Down Case,” Life Site News, October 8, 2008.  Referenced at:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/oct/08100812

Meg Jalsevac, “Court Rules Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parents Consent or Choice to Opt Out,” Life Site News, February 26, 2007.  Referenced at:  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/feb/07022604

“California Governor Signs Bill Requiring Schools to Teach Gay History,” CNN, July 14, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-14/us/california.lgbt.education_1_california-governor-signs-bill-gay-history-state-textbooks?_s=PM:US

“The Problem Facing California Public School Parents,” Rescue Your Child.  Referenced at:  http://rescueyourchild.com/The_Problem.html

Billy Hallowell, “California Bill That Mandates Public Schools Teach Gay History Goes to Governor,” The Blaze, July 6, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/california-bill-that-mandates-public-schools-teach-gay-history-goes-to-governor/

“California Public Schools to Teach Homosexual Curriculum to Children as Young as Kindergartners,” American Power, October 17, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/10/california-public-schools-to-teach.html

“California Senate Votes to Force All California Public Schools to Promote Homosexuality, Transsexuality, Bisexuality Education,” Christian News Wire.  Referenced at:  http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/58592127.html

Teresa Watanabe, “How to Teach Gay Issues in 1st Grade,” Los Angeles Times, October 16, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/16/local/la-me-gay-schools-20111016

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1937.  [Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)]

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

J.B. Stonecypher, ” The World War II Memorial, Through an Old Veteran’s Eyes” (letter), Mississippi Press Editorial Board, May 5, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-opinion/2012/05/the_world_war_ii_memorial_through_an_old_veterans_eyes_letter.html

“America in Bible Prophecy,” Fox Ventures.  Referenced at:  http://www.foxven.com/r1c

Mitt Romney Delivers Commencement Address at Liberty University, May 12, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.mittromney.com/news/press/2012/05/mitt-romney-delivers-commencement-address-liberty-university

Dr. Nelson L. Price, “God’s Judgment on America.”  Referenced at:  http://www.nelsonprice.com/gods-judgement-on-america-2/

“America in Prophecy,” Israel’s Messiah.  Referenced at:  http://israelsmessiah.com/prophecy/america/warned.htm

“God Rejected,” Wake Up America.  Referenced at:  http://www.wakeupamericainc.org/godrejected.html

Berit Kjos, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Nazi Religion versus “Religionless” Faith,” 2010.  Referenced at:  http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/010/1-bonhoeffer.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Why We Need a Constitutional Amendment to Protect Traditional Marriage

 

 

by Diane Rufino

Years ago, and indeed, the whole of history, will show that marriage has always been intended to bind a man and woman together in a special union for the purpose of procreating and raising children.  It was not until 2001 that countries have begun allowing same-sex marriage. And the historical tradition makes sense.

In the Bible we learn the roots of marriage. In Genesis 2:7 we learn: “The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” In verse 18, God said: “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper.”  And so we learn, in verses 21-22 that “the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and as he slept, he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh.  And the rib He had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto him.”

In 1 Corinthians 11:8-10, the Bible teaches “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to hold a special place… “

Genesis 2:23-24 reads: “Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.”

The “helper” that God created for Man was a woman and not another man. It was woman that was intended to complement Man, not another man. The word “helper” that was used in the Bible to describe Eve means “to surround, to protect or aid, help.” Eve was created to be alongside Adam as his “other half,” to be his aid and his helper. A man and woman, when married, become “one flesh.” This oneness is manifested most fully in the physical union of sexual intimacy and then the mixing of a half complement of DNA from the father and a half complement of DNA from the mother to form “one complete” genetic offspring.  A child.

The New Testament adds a warning regarding this oneness. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19:6).  It is from these Biblical roots that marriage has become so strong a union and one that society is cautioned to protect.

Even more fundamental are the scientific and biological laws that underlie the purpose and uniformity of life and existence here on Earth.  Scientific laws are essential to life because only then can actions and natural events be explained and even predicted.  Predictable scientific laws are the basis for free will. Biology teaches that all species are guided by certain biological imperatives, which are the requirements absolutely necessary to perpetuate their existence and their species. This is the core principle explaining Darwinian evolution.

In order for a species to persist, it must, by definition, reproduce to ensure the continuation of their species. Without reproduction the species ceases to exist. The capacity for reproduction and the drive to do so are  universal among living organisms, and as we know, they are expressed in a multitude of ways by the spectrum of living organisms. The urge to procreate is an involuntary and unconscious biological drive which first emerged as an inherent property of living cells and is echoed in the upper levels of organization of multi-cellular organisms. Self-preservation and reproduction are the strongest of biological imperatives. And it is for that purpose that we protect marriage as an institution and pay so much attention to the family structure and gender interactions. There is clearly a productive gender interaction and a counterproductive gender interaction. The former serves the interests of the laws of nature and the latter frustrates them. Left alone, without any cooperation from heterosexual unions, homosexuality would be an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

Understanding that homosexuals love the children that they raise together (but not conceived from their union) and want the best for them, their conduct is not of a natural design and their interaction as a “married couple” cannot satisfactorily stand in the place of a proper heterosexual married couple. Gender interactions, gender roles, gender inclinations, tendencies, proclivities, etc are all the crucial “unspoken” lessons that children need to learn to take their place in an ordered society.  Each parent, wired biologically and genetically through their gender, offers his/her child something unique and teaches something invaluably which guides that child through childhood, adolescence, and into adulthood so he/she can follow in the same natural footsteps.  Children in a non-traditional household (same-sex parents) are programmed differently and suffer psychological confusion that may or may not manifest itself later in life.  Physicians, scientists, and psychologists all understand that the mental and psychological development of a child is fragile and even as an adolescent, proper processing by the brain is often not possible because development of the brain and its connections are not complete.  Any biological programming which could serve to compromise the integrity of the species, its effectiveness to procreate, and its survival runs afoul of the laws of nature.  Eroding the blessed institution of marriage, protected for the purpose of procreation and the proper raising of children, and allowing and erasing gender requirements by its nature is against the normal and natural evolution of a species and its continuance of life.

There is no fundamental right to marriage.  It is not included in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights for a reason…  It was not considered one of those basic rights that would prohibit government regulation.  Judge N. Randy Smith, of the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (in San Francisco), was correct in his dissenting opinion of the Prop 8 appeal: “The family structure of two committed biological parents – one man and one woman – is the optimal partnership for raising children.” He also said that governments have a legitimate interest in “a responsible procreation theory, justifying the inducement of marital recognition only for opposite-sex couples” because only they can have children. He urged judicial restraint, that the justices should refrain from striking down Proposition 8.  [pg. 195]

[What was Proposition 8?  Proposition 8 - titled "Constitutional Amendment Initiative: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry" on the California voter ballot and called the "California Marriage Protection Act" by proponents - was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state election. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provided that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."  By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court's ruling of In re Marriage Cases which held that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, a statute which had passed in California in 2000.  But, as an ordinary statute, it was easily invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008].

Biblical and biological emphasis aside, I believe the Marriage Amendment as drafted in North Carolina for the primary vote on May 8th should not prohibit all legal unions between same-sex couples where legitimate contractual and property rights are involved, but only those  that involve the raising of children.  If two homosexual men or two women want to live together in a “committed type of relationship” and want enter into a contract for the purpose of protecting property rights (such as insurance, etc), then there should be laws to protect those contracts – just as it would protect other contracts.  Opponents of the NC Marriage Amendment are correct that contract rights are a fundamental right and ones very much on the minds of our Founding Fathers.  But the spirit of the Marriage Amendment is to define the institution of marriage as that between a man and a woman and to ensure that only such a union is acceptable for to bringing forth children and raising them so that there is a proper vehicle to instill historically moral and biological (gender) values.

It is unfortunate that the gay and lesbian agenda requires the erosion of such a fundamentally important institution and requires courts to get involved in a matter that was intended to be beyond the reach of judges.  We all heard of the old saying that when groups are unsuccessful in getting favorable legislation the legitimate way, they take their chances with liberal judges… and often win.  That is a sad state of affairs, especially considering that the strength of our nation rests on the fact that it is a constitutional republic… a nation of laws and not of men. For those who don’t or can’t appreciate the harm in getting the courts involved in the definition of marriage, check out the article written by Dr. Earl Taylor, current president of the National Center of Constitutional Studies, in April 2004 in which he discusses the topic of marriage and the US Constitution.  In his article, he asks the question – With the deplorable state of the wickedness and depravity which surrounds us now, should the Constitution be amended to define the institution of marriage?  He looked to renowned law professor Richard Wilkins for advice. Wilkins writes that years ago he would have suggested to leave the Constitution alone.  But, he notes, these are troubling times and now urges people to push for a constitutional definition of marriage.  He is quite serious when he states “Unless the people clearly establish the constitutional meaning of marriage, the judges will do it for us – and, in the process, erode the very idea of a written Constitution, expand judicial power and upset the vital balance of power established by the Framers of the United States Constitution.”

Richard Wilkins – law professor, former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, and the founder and managing director of Defend Marriage (a project of United Families International) – explained why a constitutional amendment might be necessary:

“Ten years ago, I would have explained that amending the Constitution to define marriage is clearly wrong – for at least three important reasons.  First, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. Second, marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people within their respective states.  Third, and finally, the last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts.  Why tempt the judges by inserting a new topic into the Constitution?  But that was then and this is now. Now, when I hear devotees of the Constitution repeat arguments that are almost a part of my DNA, I shake my head in disbelief.  The very concerns that, ten years ago, would have prompted my opposition to a marriage amendment now compel my support.

The Constitution says nothing about marriage.  But judges have.  (Likewise, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, but that hasn’t stopped judges from manufacturing a reference). Federal courts have managed to intrude in areas where the Constitution gives them no license to tread.”

It clearly appears that the Constitution was written to leave questions like marriage to the States.  Any constitutional scholar can attest to that.  Yet an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same” has not been enough to prevent judges from giving us an entirely new Constitution.  In its decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court, for the first time in history, announced that the Constitution prohibits state legislatures from treating homosexuality any differently than heterosexuality. Specifically, the Court said that challengers, Lawrence and Garner (homosexual lovers) were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause.  Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas opposed the decision.  But the majority did something extraordinary in that case; it did something it historically refrains from doing.  It reversed its earlier decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which held that the Constitution confers no fundamental right for homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy.

Professor Wilkins asks: “What does this decision and this new Constitution do to marriage?”  He points to the state of Massachusetts as a perfect example.  He said: “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court answered that question.  Relying on the  high Court’s decision in Lawrence , the Massachusetts court has allowed same-sex marriage. It merely relied on the reasoning of the US Supreme Court in that decision to interpret its own state constitution.”  The Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, in unilaterally issuing marriage licenses contrary to controlling California law, likewise relied upon the reasoning of Lawrence to defend the legality of his actions.

Our Constitution, which once said nothing about marriage, now appears to says a lot about marriage.  (Just interview the mayor of San Francisco.  Why did he issue marriage licenses not authorized by California law?  ‘The Constitution demands it,’ he said.)  Wilkins asserts: “The last thing America needs is more powerful federal courts.”

Marriage is a question the Constitution wisely leaves to the people to decide in their respective states. And again the judges have taken that power away.  As Professor Wilkins wrote: “Whatever the Constitution once provided has changed.  All rules related to marriage have now been subsumed by a ‘constitutional analysis’ previously unknown to the law. State legislatures, and the people they represent, no longer control the meaning of marriage or the hundreds and thousands of legal rules associated with marriage. All such questions, henceforth, will be governed by decisions of state and federal courts. And, in light of the expansive ‘constitutional analysis’ adopted in Lawrence, those decisions will be guided neither by the words of the Constitution nor the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people.”

Wilkins went on to write: “In light of the foregoing, anyone concerned about preserving the structure and content of the American Constitution should understand why the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitutional amendment’ need to be linked, to save the social viability of marriage, and integrity of the Constitution itself.”

The United States Supreme Court has demonstrated that it is capable of transcending not only the wording of the Constitution but the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people.  Even though the Constitution says nothing about ‘sexual liberty;’ even though the history, traditions and actual practices of the American people do not support an unrestrained ‘right’ for consenting adults to engage in any kind of sex they want; the Court has created this very right out of thin air.  Lawrence created this ‘right,’ not by relying upon the wording of the Constitution or the traditions and practices of American society, but by invoking (and I am not making this up) the ‘meaning of life’ and ‘mysteries of the universe.’

The judges are now so powerful that they feel free to invent the Constitution as they move along.  (If the definition of marriage – an understanding as old as time – violates constitutional strictures, one wonders what centuries’ old legal notions the “mysteries of the universe” will invalidate next.)  In light of these astonishing developments, it is absolutely clear why so many people are putting the words ‘marriage’ and ‘constitution’ in the same sentence.  An amendment is necessary to preserve not only the social viability of marriage, but the political integrity of the Constitution.”

But the Constitution provides for limited jurisdiction of the federal courts. In fact, the U. S. Constitution states:

“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” (Article 3.2.2, emphasis added)

Some Constitutional devotees have relied on this clause to indicate all Congress has to do is pass a law limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But this is not what it says. As Dr. Skousen, author of such books as The 5000 Year Leap, The Making of America, and The Naked Communist, explains: “This provision was not designed to give Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, but simply to make decisions on many topics conclusive after a hearing in the lower courts. It was the purpose of the Founders to protect the Supreme Court from being submerged by a mountain of trivial cases when it should be concentrating its attention on matters of national importance.” ( The Making of America, p. 612. See quotes from the Founders on pages 612-613 to support this position)

Even if Congress were to pass a law limiting the kinds of cases which could be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may have the opposite effect. Imagine not being able to appeal sensitive cases to the Supreme Court. That would make the lower court decisions final. The lower courts have been just as active in destroying the Constitution as the Supreme Court has been, and there are so many more of them!  (Examples include abortion, flag burning, homosexuality, and pornography cases).

A much better solution is to begin to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts to the eleven kinds of cases outlined in Article III of the Constitution. However, this still would not undo the damage of past cases.

And so Professor Richard Wilkins believes the only course left is for the good people of the United States to amend the Constitution to define the institution of marriage according to traditional values.  He believes that the traditional family is the vehicle of the decent, moral, and productive values of a free society.  He believes that if this vehicle is destroyed – if the family is destroyed – then we will see increased anarchy and eventually the country will be ripe for revolution or submission to government indoctrination.  (In fact, he believes that there are forces out to destroy the traditional family for this very reason).  He explains why the time is ripe for a constitutional amendment:

“1. A Constitutional amendment will restore the crucial understanding that American government operates under a written Constitution.

As Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous decision of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, America is governed by ‘a written constitution’ and ‘the framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.’  (Emphasis by Justice Marshall.)  Because the Constitution binds the courts as well as any other branch of government, judges should adhere to the text of the Constitution and interpret and apply its terms consistently with the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people.  Any other course, as Chief Justice Marshall noted in Marbury , ‘would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.’

Modern courts have dangerously ignored the teachings of Marbury. The ‘new Constitution,’ announced by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, frees judges from any need to tie their decisions to either the words of the Constitution or the traditions, history and actual practices of the American people.  Many people applaud the idea of a ‘living Constitution;’ a document that transcends words, definitions and the restrictive bonds of history and tradition.  But a document as fluid, unfettered and free as the ‘new Constitution’ unveiled in Lawrence bears little resemblance to the Constitution that, for most of its 215-year history, has demanded that the people (and not the courts) resolve society’s controversial moral and social debates.

Under the ‘new Constitution’ announced in Lawrence, the more divisive, difficult and debatable the controversy, the more likely it is that a court – rather than a legislature – will settle the matter.  Why?  Because (according to the judges, the law professors and other elites) the ‘meaning of life’ and the ‘mysteries of the universe’ become more and more important as social debates become more and more divisive, difficult and debatable.

Of course, this is not the Constitution the Framers intended.  It is not what the written text demands.  But it is what the courts have now decreed.  We need an amendment on marriage, not only to protect marriage, but to demonstrate to the courts that they exceeded their power in constitutionalizing marriage in the first place.

Modern courts feel free to ignore or alter constitutional text at will.  A constitutional amendment on marriage, by forcefully rejecting the judges’ latest excursion from constitutional text and history, will forcibly (and quite properly) remind the judges that their role is to adjudicate, not legislate.  A constitutional amendment is necessary to revive the idea which provides ‘the very foundation of all written constitutions;’ that is, that the Constitution is ‘a rule for the government of courts , as well as of the legislature.’  Marbury v. Madison (emphasis in original).

2. A constitutional amendment will restore the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government.

Under the ‘new Constitution’ drafted by the Supreme Court in Lawrence, state legislatures may not ‘demean’ the sexual practices of ‘consenting adults’ that are closely connected to individual views regarding ‘the meaning of life’ and ‘mysteries of the universe.’  (For those of you who either aren’t familiar with legal lingo or simply like people to write clearly: legislatures may not suggest that there are any differences between heterosexuality and homosexuality.)  To reach this result, of course, the Supreme Court had to ignore the words of the Constitution and the history and traditions of the American people.  In their place, the Justices have given us a poem – a poem as vague, expansive or restrictive as the next metaphor or lyrical couplet favored by five members of the Supreme Court.

This departure from text, history and tradition is a serious matter.  It dramatically upsets the proper balance of power between the judiciary and the representative branches of government. If government action encroaches upon core constitutional values (as contained in clear constitutional text construed in light of actual American practice, experience and tradition) the judiciary must act.  But the Founders intended the judicial role to be exceptional and rarely invoked.  Alexander Hamilton, writing in The Federalist Papers, proclaimed the judiciary the ‘least dangerous branch’ because it does not create policy but merely exercises ‘judgment.’  The really difficult questions, Hamilton and the other Founders thought, would be left to the people.

Modern social activists (and too many judges) have either forgotten or chosen to ignore that most governmental decisions are not controlled (and can’t be controlled) by the precise language of the Constitution.  If the ‘correct’ answers to pressing questions are fairly debatable, those questions must be – indeed, can only be – resolved by legislative action.

The expanding reach of American constitutional law has rendered the public increasingly oblivious to its role as the primary source of decision-making power under the United States Constitution.   By inventing and enforcing ‘rights’ nowhere evident in the language of the Constitution or the history and traditions of the American people, lawyers, judges and law professors have slowly eroded democratic decision making, reducing or eliminating the people’s popular control over an ever-expanding range of fairly debatable controversies.

The Constitution was not drafted, nor was it intended, to turn over marriage and marital policy to the federal courts.  But, because the courts have now concluded otherwise, a constitutional amendment is needed to restore democratic balance.  Without a constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court – and not the people – ultimately will determine what marriage means.  With all due respect to the Honorable Court, this is too important a decision to be made by five people in black robes.

The question is: What does the Constitution demand?  I fully understand the concerns of those who assert that, since the Constitution has never addressed marriage before, it should not be amended to address marriage now. But whatever the Constitution said (or did not say) about marriage for the past 215 years, whatever the history, traditions and practices of the American people confirm (or do not confirm) about the meaning of marriage, marriage is in the Constitution.  The Founders did not do it.  But the courts have.

By placing marriage in the Constitution, the judges have taken marriage out of the hands of the people.  The judges have done violence to the very idea of a written Constitution, have eroded legislative power, and have significantly expanded their own power.  It is now up to the people, by constitutional amendment, to remedy these errors. A constitutional amendment is needed, not only to preserve marriage, but to restore constitutional order.”

Steve Farrell writes: “We can’t turn over the fate of the family to nine folks in robes. Judicial tyranny is not for you and not for me. It’s time to reign these judges in, and remind them that constitutions are set up to preserve the values of a society, not overthrow them.”

 

References:

Richard Wilkins, Marriage and the Constitution: Why We Need an Amendment

Earl Taylor Jr, “Marriage and the Constitution”, NCCS, April 2004.  Referenced at:  http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr04nl.html

W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 1985; The National Center for Constitutional Studies.

Steve Farrell, “Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?,” Newsmax, March 3, 2004.  Referenced at:  http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/3/134302.shtml

Steve Farrell, “Marriage and the Constitution: Time for an Amendment?,” Federal Observer, April 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=7369

“California Proposition 8,” Wikipedia.  Referenced at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

Diane Rufino, “Perry v. Schwartzenegger: California Becomes the Latest Battleground for Gay Marriage Rights,” August 2010.  Referenced at:  http://forloveofgodandcountry.wordpress.com

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Why a Marriage Amendment?

 

 

 

by Diane Rufino

 

My state of North Carolina is the latest state to face a possible erosion of traditional marriage. The question will be: How will its people react?  Marriage is a solid bedrock foundation of communities – the source of modeling, morality, and values. The lessons children learn go far beyond the mere words that parents speak.

Redefining marriage as a genderless institution has consequences. First, public schools will be legally required to teach same-sex marriage on an equal footing with traditional marriage. It will therefore take away the most fundamental right that parents have – to raise their children according to values they hold dear and according to their rights of religious conscience.  James Madison said: “Conscience is the most sacred of all property  – our greatest possession.”

Look at the situation in the schools in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2004.  One can find the book “King & King” by Linda de Haan and Stern Nijland in their elementary school libraries. The book tells the story of a queen who decided it was time for her son, the prince, to marry. He rejects every princess she offers. Finally the last candidate enters, and the prince feels “a stir in his heart.” But it was for one princess’s brother, Prince Lee.  The two men marry and the book reads: “Everyone lives happily ever after.” On the last page, the two princes kiss, with a red heart covering their mouths.

The book glorifies the idea that it’s perfectly OK to have same-sex marriage.

A grade school boy in California returned home from school and asked his mother: “Mom, am I gay?”  She wanted to know why he would ask such a question.  He told her that his teacher told the class that “anyone can be gay.”  Children shouldn’t be confronted with such questions. They shouldn’t have to entertain such possibilities or have to deal with such unnecessary confusion.  Growing up is hard enough.

Parents have a tough enough time raising their children with proper values and morals and they can’t keep fighting with a school system that wants social change rather than social stability. Providing a definition to the institution of marriage in NC would help ensure that teachers assign classic reading and not books like “King & King.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

And Now We Wait (for the healthcare ruling)

by Diane Rufino

On Monday, March 26, the Supreme Court began oral arguments in the highly-anticipated case challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act.  By Wednesday afternoon, the hearings had concluded.  The historic arguments consolidated an appeal from 26 states, a group representing several small businesses, and several individuals who contend that the 2010 health care law, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, is unconstitutional.

Perhaps significantly, Justice Kennedy, the Court’s notorious swing vote, appeared to be very concerned about the status of young people with respect to the healthcare bill. He noted that the government hasn’t exactly been honest about its intentions with the bill, which was to offset the burden that uninsured individuals place on healthcare.

If the administration was really interested in preventing young people (many who are uninsured) from being such a burden, the healthcare plan would allow them to buy only catastrophic health insurance (instead of the plan that includes well visits, preventative care).  Catastrophic health insurance is all that 20-30 year-olds really need; It’s the only product that makes any economic sense for them.  But Obamacare doesn’t allow that. So, as Kennedy emphasized, we see what the healthcare bill is really all about. It’s about using 20-30 year-olds to subsidize the plan, to subsidize insurance for those who can’t afford it.  It’s about using young healthy people to fund the program.  It’s about a social scheme.

As we all know, the government’s plan is to subsidize health insurance for everyone, especially those who are uninsured and sick (approximately 20% of all uninsured). The plan forces insurance companies to cover the sick. But it doesn’t want to use the typical means to pay for this – such as tax subsidies.  Instead, the government wants to reach OUTSIDE the market and COMPEL a whole bunch of healthy people into that market so they can be used to subsidize the program and help bring healthcare premiums down.  In fact, this was the finding by Congress: that bringing young healthy people into the market will bring down the health insurance premium by about 15% for everyone.  Unfortunately, though, it will force them to buy something they don’t need or want.

The healthcare challenge, on its face, is about the Individual Mandate – the government’s belief that it has the power under the Commerce Clause to force Americans to purchase the specific health insurance it dictates, even those who don’t need it.  It is also about the fundamental scheme in place, established by our Founders and memorialized with the Tenth Amendment, that the federal government is a government of limited powers with the bulk of powers being reserved to the States where they can most effectively regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of their people. It is about the section of the bill which enlarges the Medicaid program and coerces the States to participate in its healthcare scheme by threatening to withhold all Medicaid funding should they decide not to.  According to the states, the sheer volume of the federal funding at stake leaves them with no practical capacity to withdraw from Medicaid.  By placing all of a state’s federal Medicaid dollars at risk for the failure to adhere to the healthcare bill’s conditions, they claim the Act also amounts to compulsion.  And furthermore, they claim that conditions imposed on state governments to implement the scheme constitutes impermissible commandeering of the states and their resources.

But the underlying issue is individual liberty.  It is about the right of an individual to be free from government compulsion – not being forced to do something against one’s will or spending one’s money (that is, what remains after the government takes its cut in the form of income taxes) on things one don’t want or need.  It’s the fundamental right to conduct one’s life the way he or she feels fit and to make his or her own personal decisions.  It’s the basic right “to be left alone” by government.

And the decision, therefore, will speak volumes about how strongly our nation’s highest court is committed to this grand notion of individual liberty. We already know that there are several justices who believe in an expansive view of government and use the court to evolve its responsibilities. And there are those justices who believe in the strict interpretation of the Constitution and in limits to federal power.  And then there is Justice Kennedy, who can be defined by neither classification. His opinion may turn out to be the deciding factor in this case.

All eyes are usually on Justice Kennedy, the genial justice who sits on the fence, often keeping interested parties nervous as to which side he will side with – the liberal bloc (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan)  or the conservative bloc (Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the Chief Justice John Roberts). Kennedy was appointed to the bench in 1988 by President Reagan, after the Senate failed to confirm his first choice, committed originalist Robert Bork. Reagan also appointed Justice Scalia.  At the time of his appointment, he was a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, appointed by President Gerald R. Ford. The Ninth Circuit is known as the most liberal of the circuit courts, and in fact, tried to remove the words “Under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Justice Kennedy’s crucial swing vote has often been the decisive factor in many of our most important and controversial cases of recent years.

  • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000; upholding the Boy Scouts of America’s organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.  He joined the conservative justices in this decision)
  • Lawrence v. Texas (2003; finding the right of homosexual men to engage in sodomy in the privacy of their home thereby overturning an earlier Supreme Court decision which banned the practice. He joined the liberal justices on this decision)
  • Kelo v. City of New London (2005; holding that local government has the power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent domain. He joined the liberal justices in this decision)
  • United States v. Lopez (2005: holding that possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, in the aggregate, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce because the conduct at issue has nothing to do with “commerce.” He joined the conservative justices in this decision)
  • Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008; holding that the 8th Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the heinous rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim’s death, although the injuries were so extensive, doctors don’t know how she survived. Kennedy joined the liberal justices on this decision)
  • Boumediene v. Bush (2008; a case challenging the legality of Boumediene’s detention at Guantanamo Bay. Kennedy sided with the four liberal justices in finding that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus applies to persons held in Guantanamo Bay and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory)
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008; holding that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms; All four of the liberal justices believe it only applies to state militias and therefore prevents individuals from having the right to possess guns in their homes)
  • McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010; holding that Heller applies to the States through the 14th Amendment. holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. Kennedy sided with the conservative justices in asserting that these rights are “fundamental to the nation’s scheme of ordered liberty” and are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and hence are appropriately applied to the states through the 14th Amendment)
  • Brown v. Plata (2011; holding that releasing violent criminals from an over-crowded prison is a proper remedy to address the violation of prisoners’ 8th Amendment guarantee against ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ caused by long wait times to see prison doctors and less-than-ideal medical accommodations)

In the 2008–2009 term, there were 16 decisions in which the justices split strictly along ideological lines. Kennedy joined the conservative members of the Court eleven times and the liberals only five.

And so, all eyes were on Justice Kennedy in the case against the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and all ears were open to his questions and comments, in the hopes of providing a glimpse into his mindset regarding the administration’s huge power grab under the Act.

On the first day of hearings, the justices had to entertain whether the healthcare challenge is even allowable under the Anti Injunction Act (AIA), a federal tax law that says, in essence, that a taxpayer cannot challenge a tax until it comes into effect.  The provision at issue is the penalty portion of the Act, which requires that almost every individual purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty. The questions before the Court were twofold: (1)  Can the penalty be classified as a “tax” and therefore implicate the AIA?  And (2)  If so, is it then premature for the court to consider the present challenge to the individual mandate?

Justice Breyer asked point blank: “Where I see the problem is in the part of the AIA which refers to the ‘assessment or collection of any tax.’  Now, Congress has nowhere used the word ‘tax.’  What it says is ‘penalty.’ Moreover, this is not in the Internal Revenue Code ‘but for purposes of collection.’  And so why is this a tax?”  He further emphasized that lawmakers intentionally did not use the term when they crafted the legislation nor did they intend the penalty as a tax.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, another liberal member of the Court,  also expressed skepticism. “This is not a revenue-raising measure because, if it’s successful, nobody will pay the penalty and therefore there will be no revenue to raise.”

Judging on the arguments and discussion made the first day, it seems likely the case will be decided and not postponed.  Even the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli urged the justices to decide the merits of the dispute. “This case presents issues of great moment,” he said.

On the second day of hearings Verrilli faced a barrage of skeptical questions from four of the court’s more conservative justices, including Justice Kennedy.  The questions posed to him went straight to the central issue in the case and that is whether the federal government can compel individuals not engaged in commerce to buy a product – health insurance – and hence become part of that commerce in order to be regulated. “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Justice Kennedy asked.  That was his very first question of the day.  He later told Mr. Verrilli that the federal government faced “a heavy burden of justification” for the Individual Mandate and pressed him to articulate “some limits on the Commerce Clause.”

The court focused on whether the mandate for Americans to have insurance “amounts to an affirmative duty to engage in commerce” and is therefore “an unprecedented step beyond what our cases allow,” which is how Justice Kennedy phrased the issue. He then told Verrilli: “With this law, you are changing the relationship of the individual to the government.”

Chief Justice Roberts asked: “So, can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? That way, you can just dial 911 no matter where you are?”  Verrilli tried to argue that Roberts’ scenario was distinguishable from the health care market.  But Roberts fired back: “It seems to me that’s the same as in my hypothetical. You don’t know when you’re going to need police assistance. You can’t predict the extent to emergency response that you’ll need. But when you do, and the government provides it. I thought that was an important part of your argument, that when you need health care, the government will make sure you get it. Well, when you need police assistance or fire assistance or ambulance assistance, the government is going to make sure to the best of its ability that you get it.”

Justice Alito asked Solicitor General Verrilli: “Do you think there is a, a market for burial services?”  He answered in the affirmative. Alito then continued: “All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, “You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else. Isn’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?”  Verrilli didn’t agree.  But Alito pushed further: “And if that’s true, why isn’t it equally artificial to say that somebody who is doing absolutely nothing about health care is financing health care services?  See, I don’t see the difference. You can get burial insurance. You can get health insurance. Most people are going to need health care. Almost everybody. Everybody is going to be buried or cremated at some point. What’s the difference?  If you don’t have money then someone has to pay… Whether the State or a family member.  And isn’t that what the mandate is doing?  You can correct me if these figures are wrong, but it appears to me that the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has estimated that the average premium for a single insurance policy in the non-group market would be roughly $5,800 in — in 2016.  The administration estimates that a young, healthy individual targeted by the mandate on average consumes about $854 in health services each year. So the mandate is forcing these people to provide a huge subsidy to the insurance companies for other purposes that the act wishes to serve, but if those figures are right, isn’t it the case that what this mandate is really doing is not requiring the people who are subject to it to pay for the services that they are going to consume?  It is requiring them to subsidize services that will be received by somebody else.”  Verrilli acknowledged that this was in fact the case.

Chief Justice Roberts commented: “It’s critical how you define the market. If I understand the law, the policies that you’re requiring people to purchase involve – must contain provision for maternity and newborn care, pediatric services, and substance use treatment. It seems to me that you cannot say that everybody is going to need substance use treatment, substance use treatment or pediatric services, and yet that is part of what you require them to purchase.  Your theory is that there is a market in which everyone participates because everybody might need a certain range of health care services, and yet you’re requiring people who are never going to need pediatric or maternity services to participate in that market.”

He then asked: “If the government can force people to buy health insurance can it require people to buy certain types of cars?  Broccoli?”  Justice Scalia hinted that if everyone were forced to buy a new car, it might help lower the costs of new cars for everyone.

Scalia offered his interpretation of the government’s case: “I don’t agree with you that the relevant market here is health care. You’re not regulating health care. You’re regulating insurance. It’s the insurance market that you’re addressing and you’re saying that some people who are not in it must be in it. That approach is different from the regulation of any type of commerce that already exists out there.”

Solicitor General Verrilli tried to paraphrase the government’s position: “Our position is that it’s not an illegitimate exercise of the commerce power for some people to subsidize others. You’re young and healthy one day, but you don’t stay that way. And the system works over time.”

Justice Scalia spoke up: “We’re not stupid. They’re going to buy insurance later. They’re young and need the money now.  When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they’ll buy insurance, like the rest of us. You seem to suggest that they are never going to buy it.  You could solve that problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to sell it to somebody who has a condition that is going to require medical treatment, or at least not require them to sell it to him at a rate that he sells it to healthy people.  But you don’t want to do that.  And to me, that seems like a problem created by the government – a self-created problem.”

Chief Justice Roberts added: “You say your argument is limited to health insurance  But once you establish that you have a market for health care, would you suppose Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause is broad in scope with regard to how they  they regulate that market. I don’t see how we can accept your argument that ‘it’s just insurance.’  Once we say that there is a market and Congress can require people to participate in it, as some would say – or as you would say, that people are already participating in it – it seems to me that we can’t say there are limitations on what Congress can do under its commerce power.  It could regulate the market in any rational way.  Congress has chosen to regulate the health care market. Everybody’s in it, they said, so it can be regulated. This year, they looked at a particular serious problem, which is how people pay for it.  And they decided to compel people to purchase insurance. But next year, they can decide to look at something else – a different problem – and decide how they are going to regulate it. And they’ll be able to do it because they’ve already accepted the argument that this is a market in which everybody participates.”

Scalia jumped in: “I tell you what the something else is. The something else is everybody has to exercise, because there’s no doubt that lack of exercise cause — causes illness, and that causes health care costs to go up. So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club. That’s the something else.”

Mr. Verrilli tried to explain: “What matters here is whether Congress is choosing a tool that’s reasonably adapted to the problem that Congress is confronting. And that may mean that the tool is different from a tool that Congress has chosen to use in the past.”

Justice Scalia responded: “Well, that’s both “Necessary and Proper.” What you just said addresses what’s necessary. Yes, has to be reasonably adapted. Necessary does not mean essential, just reasonably adapted. But in addition to being necessary, it has to be proper. And we’ve held in two cases that something that was reasonably adapted was not proper because it violated the sovereignty of the States, which was implicit in the constitutional structure. The argument here is that this also may be necessary, but it’s not proper because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it’s supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that’s what all this questioning has been about. What is left?  If the government can do this, what, what else can it not do?  But that’s not the only constitutional principle at stake in this case. An equally evident constitutional principle is the principle that the Federal Government is a government of enumerated powers and that the vast majority of powers remain in the States and do not belong to the Federal Government. Do you acknowledge that that’s a principle?”  Verrilli so acknowledged.

Scalia continued: “I mean, the Tenth Amendment says the powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and the people. And the argument here is that the people were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance or not.”

Justice Kennedy added:  “The reason this Mandate is concerning is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.  And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

Chief Justice inserted: “The States are not limited to enumerated powers, but the Federal Government is. And it seems to me it’s an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States.”

Another issue that came up was whether the penalty could be classified as a tax (returning to some degree to the topic touched on the day before).  If the penalty could be classified as a tax, then the thought is that the Individual Mandate could be supported, in the alternative, under Congress’ “Tax and Spend” powers.  Justice Scalia quickly noted that “the President has said it isn’t a tax.”  Then Justice Ginsberg added: ” A tax is to raise revenue, tax is a revenue-raising device, and the purpose of this exaction is to get people into the health care risk pool before they need medical care, and so it will be successful. If it doesn’t raise any revenue, if it gets people to buy the insurance, that’s what this penalty is designed to do – to affect conduct. The conduct is buy health protection, buy health insurance before you have a need for medical care. That’s what the penalty is designed to do, not to raise revenue.”

At that point, the Solicitor General stepped down and the respondents’ attorney (that is, for the states), Mr. Clement was given time before the Court.  He immediately struck down the administration’s position that the Individual Mandate (the penalty, in particular) could be legally supported under the Taxing power.  As he told the Court: “I think it might raise some issues about whether or not that would be a valid exercise of the taxing power. My constitutional concern is that it would be a disguised impermissible direct tax. And we all know that Congress is limited in its ability to impose direct taxes. The one thing I think the framers would have clearly identified as a direct tax is a tax on not having something. I mean, the framing generation was divided over whether a tax on carriages was a direct tax or not. Hamilton thought that was a indirect tax; Madison thought it was a direct tax. I have little doubt that both of them would have agreed that a tax on not having a carriage would have clearly been a direct tax. I also think they would have thought it clearly wasn’t a valid regulation of the market in carriages.”

Attorney Clement then moved on to the market that the government is trying to dominate: “What health insurance does and what all insurance does is it allows you to diversify risk. And so it’s not just a matter of I’m paying now instead I’m paying later. That’s credit. Insurance is different than credit. Insurance guarantees you an upfront, locked-in payment, and you won’t have to pay any more than that even if you incur much great expenses. And in every other market that I know of for insurance, we let people basically make the decision whether they are relatively risk averse, whether they are relatively non-risk averse, and they can make the judgment based on…”

Justice Sotomayor interrupted: “But we don’t in car insurance, I mean the states don’t.  Let me ask you a question:  Do you think that if some states decided not to impose an insurance requirement, that the Federal Government would be without power to legislate and require every individual to buy car insurance?”

Clement answered: “Let me say this, you’re right in the first point to say that it’s the states that do it, which makes it different right there.”

Justice Kennedy asked:  “Isn’t everyone in the market in the sense that they are creating a risk that the market must account for?”  Similarly, Justice Kagan asked:  “If the effect of all the uninsured people is to raise everybody’s premiums, not just when they get sick, if they get sick, but right now in the aggregate, and Wickard and Raich  tell us we should look at the aggregate, and the aggregate of all these uninsured people are increasing the normal family premium, Congress says, by a thousand dollars a year. Those people are in commerce. They are making decisions that are affecting the price that everybody pays for this service.”
[Wickard v. Filburn (wheat case; 1924, holding that Farmer Filburn couldn't grow wheat for his own use because, if other were to do the same, then in the aggregate, all these farmers would have no need to buy wheat on the open market and would therefore affect commerce) and Gonzalez v. Raich (medical marijuana case; 2005; holding that California's Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana for medical use, conflicted with the federal government's Controlled Substances Act, which is a valid exercise of Congress' commerce powers)].

Mr. Clement disagreed.  He answered: “Let’s be careful about what they were regulating in Wickard. What they were regulating was the supply of wheat. It didn’t in any way imply that they could require every American to go out and buy wheat. And yes, one of the consequences of regulating local market participants is it’ll affect the supply and the demand for the product. That’s why you can regulate them, because those local market participants have the same effect on the interstate market that a black market has on a legal market……

That aside, I don’t think the point you make distinguishes the healthcare market from other markets. When I’m sitting in my house deciding I’m not to buy a car, I am causing the labor market in Detroit to go south. I am causing maybe somebody to lose their job, and for everybody to have to pay for it under welfare. So the cost shifting that the government tries to uniquely to associate with this market, it is everywhere. And even more to the point, the rationale that they think ultimately supports this legislation, that look, it’s an economic decision, once you make the economic decision, we aggregate the decision, there is a substantial effect on commerce. That argument works here. It works in every single industry.  There are other markets that affect every one: transportation, food, burial services, though we don’t like to talk about that either. There also are situations where there are many economic effects from somebody’s failure to purchase a product. My unwillingness to buy an electric car is forcing up the price of an electric car. If only more people demanded an electric car there would be economies of scale, and the price would go down………

If I could talk about the difference between the health insurance market and the health care market…… If some private company comes up with a great new wonder drug that would have huge benefits for everybody’s health and if everybody had to buy it, it would facilitate economies of scale, and the production would be efficient, and the price would be cheaper and force everybody in the health care market, the actual health care market to buy the wonder drug, and if the government wanted to compel people to take this drug, I’d be up here making the same argument. I would be saying that there is no such authority within the commerce power of the federal government. In Federalist 45, Madison says the commerce power is a new power, but it’s not one anyone has any apprehension about. And the reason they didn’t have any apprehension about it is because it’s a power that only operated once people were already in commerce. You see that from the text of the clause. The first kind of commerce Congress gets to regulate is commerce with foreign nations. Did anybody think the fledgling Republic had the power to compel some other nation into commerce with us?  Of course not.  And in the same way, I certainly don’t think the framers had understood the commerce power to include the power to compel people to engage in commerce.”

At that point, Attorney Clement stepped down and Michael Carvin, the attorney representing several small businesses (National Federation of Independent Businesses, NFIB), addressed the Court to argue the unconstitutionality of the PPACA.  ”I’d like to begin with the Solicitor General’s main premise, which is that they can compel the purchase of health insurance in order to promote commerce in the health market because it will reduce uncompensated care. If you accept that argument, you have to fundamentally alter the text of the Constitution and give Congress plenary power. It simply doesn’t matter whether or not this regulation will promote health care commerce by reducing uncompensated care; all that matters is whether the activity actually being regulated by the act negatively affects Congress or negatively affects commerce regulation, so that it’s within the commerce power. If you agree with us that this is — exceeds commerce power, the law doesn’t somehow become redeemed because it has beneficial policy effects in the health care market. In other words, Congress does not have the power to promote commerce. Congress has — Congress has the power to regulate commerce. And if the power exceeds their permissible regulatory authority, then the law is invalid…  Think about it this way…  when you’ve entered the marketplace they can impose all sorts of restrictions on you. But what can’t they do?  I think everyone intuitively understands that regulating participants after A and B have entered into a contract is fundamentally less intrusive than requiring the contract in the first place.”

Justice Ginsberg asked: “Isn’t the only way to prevent people from paying for the cost-free healthcare of those who are sick and uninsured to have people pay sooner rather than later?”

Carvin answered: “The real problem are those who default on their health care payments. That is an entirely different group of people, an entirely different activity than being uninsured. The people who impose the costs on the rest of us are people who engage in a different activity at a different time, which is defaulting on their health care payments. It’s not the uninsured. Under Justice Kagan’s theory, you could regulate anybody if they have got a statistical connection to a problem. You could say, since we could regulate people who enter into the mortgage market and impose mortgage insurance on them, we can simply impose the requirement to buy private mortgage insurance on everybody before they have entered the market because we are doing it in this prophylactic way before it develops.”  [Chief Justice Roberts interrupted to note that not everyone enters the housing market while everyone eventually enters the healthcare market]  Carvin continued: “And my basic point to you is this: the Constitution only gives Congress the power to regulate things that negatively affect commerce or commerce regulation. It doesn’t give them the power to regulate things that are statistically connected to things that negatively affect the commerce. If they have that power, then they obviously have the power to regulate everything because everything in the aggregate is statistically connected to something that negatively affects commerce, and every compelled purchase promotes commerce.”  (I admit, I initially had a hard time following that).

Finally, Mr. Carvin ended with these words: “We turn you to the Commerce Clause jurisprudence that bedeviled the Court before the 1930s, where they were drawing all these kinds of distinctions among industries; whereas our test is really very simple. Are you buying the product or is Congress compelling you to buy the product?  I can’t think of a brighter line.  And again, if Congress has the power to compel you to buy this product, then obviously, they have got the power to provide you – to compel you to buy any product, because any purchase is going to benefit commerce, and this Court is never going to second-guess Congress’s policy judgments on how important it is this product versus that product.  The words “inactivity” and “activity” are not in the Constitution.  But the words “commerce” and “noncommerce” are.  It’s a distinction that comes directly from the text of the Constitution…..     The Framers consciously gave Congress the ability to regulate commerce, because that’s not a particularly threatening activity that deprives you of individual freedom. If you were required, if you were authorized to require A to transfer property to B, you have, as the early cases put it, a monster in legislation which is against all reason in justice, because everyone intuitively understands that regulating people who voluntarily enter into contracts in setting changing conditions does not create the possibility of Congress compelling wealth transfers among the citizenry. And that is precisely why the Framers denied them the power to compel commerce, and precisely why they didn’t give them plenary power.”

On the third day of oral arguments, the Court engaged in a discussion of severability – whether the healthcare bill could survive if the Individual Mandate was struck down and whether other provisions could still survive.  It was a tortuous line of questioning. Justice Scalia suggested many members of Congress might not have voted for the bill without the central provisions, and so perhaps it wouldn’t be fair to allow remaining portions of the bill to survive.  He also was emphatic that it was not the province of the Court to go through each and every page to sort out which provision should remain and which should go.  He even joked that being required to read the 2,700-page bill should fall under the 8th Amendment’s concept of “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.”  Justice Sotomayor argued that it was Congress’ job to fix or scrap the bill, should the mandate be found unconstitutional.  Opponents of the bill argued against severability, suggesting that simply striking the mandate while leaving in place corresponding new insurance regulations could result in a spike in premiums that Congress did not intend.

In the afternoon session, the justices considered a challenge by the 26 states to the expansion of the Medicaid program for low-income Americans, an important feature in the effort extending health insurance to an additional 30 million people. The court’s liberal justices made it fairly clear they will vote to uphold the Medicaid expansion, which would take in 15 million people with the federal government paying almost all the costs. They did not seem to agree with the challengers that expansion of the program is unconstitutionally coercive.  Justice Kagan asked: “Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?”

Attorney Clement defended the states’ position: “Let me focus on what I think are the three hallmarks of this statute that make it uniquely coercive. One of them is the fact that this statute is tied to the nonvoluntary individual mandate. The second factor, of course, is the fact that Congress here made a distinct and conscious decision to tie the state’s willingness to accept these new funds, not just to the new funds but to their entire participation in the statute, even though the coverage for these newly eligible individuals is segregated from the rest of the program. In other words, if a state doesn’t want to cover the newly eligible individuals, it not only doesn’t get the new money, it also doesn’t get any of the money under the original contact, agreement (old money).  What’s coercive is not the absolute guarantee that the secretary could cut off every penny, but the fact that she could. And the third factor is the sheer size and scope of Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid since 1984 is really breathtaking. In 1984 the Federal spending to the States was a shade over $21 billion for Medicaid. Right now it’s $250 billion, and that’s before the expansion under this statute. If the Secretary should withhold all funding for a state’s poor population, that state would have an impossible time coming up with the funds on its own to cover those people.”

Hopefully, we know where Justice Kennedy stands on matters that threaten to upset the balance of power created under our federalist system. In short, he has never been one to want to enlarge the government’s status with regard to its relationship to the States.

The arguments and answers given on day two of course represent the meat of the case. I believe it is the closing remark by Attorney Carvin which holds the key to how Justice Kennedy will ultimately view the Individual Mandate.  He emphasized that the ability to regulate commerce was not the same as compelling commerce for the latter would deprive individuals of individual liberty. I believe in his final analysis, Justice Kennedy will look at the implications the Individual Mandate has on individual liberty – the very precious intangible that our Founders so judiciously and ambitiously sought to protect and promote.

I point to two fairly recent cases to highlight Justice Kennedy’s views on Liberty and Federalism – United States v. Lopez (1995) and Bond v. United States (2011).  His words make his intentions clear. I believe his firm belief in the concept of federalism and the liberty interests it serves is an important insight as to how he may come down on the healthcare question, and especially the Individual Mandate.

In Lopez, the Court was asked to decide the constitutionality of a federal statute – the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a crime for any individual to “knowingly possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows…is a school zone.”  Alfonzo Lopez, a high school senior, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school and was arrested and charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act.  Lopez challenged the federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of Congress to legislate conduct in the states under the Commerce Clause.  Justice Kennedy agreed with the majority that the conduct the federal statue sought to regulate was not in fact “commerce” and therefore was an unconstitutional exercise of authority.  He wrote a concurring opinion:

The history of our Commerce Clause decisions contains at least two lessons of relevance to this case. The first, as stated at the outset, is the imprecision of content-based boundaries used without more to define the limits of the Commerce Clause. The second, related to the first but of even greater consequence, is that the Court as an institution and the legal system as a whole have an immense stake in the stability of our Commerce Clause jurisprudence as it has evolved to this point. Stare decisis operates with great force in counseling us not to call in question the essential principles now in place respecting the congressional power to regulate transactions of a commercial nature. That fundamental restraint on our power forecloses us from reverting to an understanding of commerce that would serve only an 18th-century economy, dependent then upon production and trading practices that had changed but little over the preceding centuries; it also mandates against returning to the time when congressional authority to regulate undoubted commercial activities was limited by a judicial determination that those matters had an insufficient connection to an interstate system. Congress can regulate in the commercial sphere on the assumption that we have a single market and a unified purpose to build a stable national economy.

In referring to the whole subject of the federal and state balance, we said this just three Terms ago: ‘This framework has been sufficiently flexible over the past two centuries to allow for enormous changes in the nature of government. The Federal Government undertakes activities today that would have been unimaginable to the Framers in two senses: first, because the Framers would not have conceived that any government would conduct such activities; and second, because the Framers would not have believed that the Federal Government, rather than the States, would assume such responsibilities. Yet the powers conferred upon the Federal Government by the Constitution were phrased in language broad enough to allow for the expansion of the Federal Government’s role.’  It does not follow, however, that in every instance the Court lacks the authority and responsibility to review congressional attempts to alter the federal balance. This case requires us to consider our place in the design of the Government and to appreciate the significance of federalism in the whole structure of the Constitution.

Of the various structural elements in the Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, and federalism, only concerning the last does there seem to be much uncertainty respecting the existence, and the content, of standards that allow the judiciary to play a significant role in maintaining the design contemplated by the Framers. Although the resolution of specific cases has proved difficult, we have derived from the Constitution workable standards to assist in preserving separation of powers and checks and balances. These standards are by now well accepted and judicial review is also established beyond question, Our role in preserving the federal balance seems more tenuous.

There is irony in this, because of the four structural elements in the Constitution just mentioned, federalism was the unique contribution of the Framers to political science and political theory. Though on the surface the idea may seem counterintuitive, it was the insight of the Framers that freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.

In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”  James Madison, Federalist No. 51

Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. . . . In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty.  The Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals. State sovereignty is not just an end in itself. Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.

The theory that two governments accord more liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernible lines of political accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second between the citizens and the States. If, as Madison expected, the federal and state governments are to control each other, see Federalist No. 51, and hold each other in check by competing for the affections of the people, see Federalist No. 46, those citizens must have some means of knowing which of the two governments to hold accountable for the failure to perform a given function. Federalism serves to assign political responsibility, not to obscure it. Were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and state authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusory. The resultant inability to hold either branch of the government answerable to the citizens is more dangerous even than devolving too much authority to the remote central power.

To be sure, one conclusion that could be drawn from The Federalist Papers is that the balance between national and state power is entrusted in its entirety to the political process. Madison’s observation that “the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due,” (Federalist No. 46) can be interpreted to say that the essence of responsibility for a shift in power from the State to the Federal Government rests upon a political judgment, though he added assurance that “the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered, Whatever the judicial role, it is axiomatic that Congress does have substantial discretion and control over the federal balance.

For these reasons, it would be mistaken and mischievous for the political branches to forget that the sworn obligation to preserve and protect the Constitution in maintaining the federal balance is their own in the first and primary instance. In the Webster-Hayne Debates and the debates over the Civil Rights Acts before the Senate Committee on Commerce (88th Congress; 1963), some Congresses have accepted responsibility to confront the great questions of the proper federal balance in terms of lasting consequences for the constitutional design. The political branches of the Government must fulfill this grave constitutional obligation if democratic liberty and the federalism that secures it are to endure.

Although it is the obligation of all officers of the Government to respect the constitutional design, the federal balance is too essential a part of our constitutional structure and plays too vital a role in securing freedom for us to admit inability to intervene when one or the other level of Government has tipped the scales too far.

Our ability to preserve this principle under the Commerce Clause has presented a much greater challenge. This clause has throughout the Court’s history been the chief source of its adjudications regarding federalism no other body of opinions affords a fairer or more revealing test of judicial qualities.  But as the branch whose distinctive duty it is to declare what the law is, are often called upon to resolve questions of constitutional law not susceptible to the mechanical application of bright and clear lines. The substantial element of political judgment in Commerce Clause matters leaves our institutional capacity to intervene more in doubt than when we decide cases, for instance, under the Bill of Rights even though clear and bright lines are often absent in the latter class of disputes. But our cases do not teach that we have no role at all in determining the meaning of the Commerce Clause.

The statute before us upsets the federal balance to a degree that renders it an unconstitutional assertion of the commerce power, and our intervention is required. As the Chief Justice explains, unlike the earlier cases to come before the Court here neither the actors nor their conduct have a commercial character, and neither the purposes nor the design of the statute have an evident commercial nexus. The statute makes the simple possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of the grounds of the school a criminal offense. In a sense, any conduct in this interdependent world of ours has an ultimate commercial origin or consequence, but we have not yet said the commerce power may reach so far. If Congress attempts that extension, then at the least we must inquire whether the exercise of national power seeks to intrude upon an area of traditional state concern.

If a State or municipality determines that harsh criminal sanctions are necessary and wise to deter students from carrying guns on school premises, the reserved powers of the States are sufficient to enact those measures. Indeed, over 40 States already have criminal laws outlawing the possession of firearms on or near school grounds.”

In the case of Bond v. United States, a woman was convicted of trying to poison her husband’s mistress. (24 times over several months). He had had a child with the mistress while still married to Bond. The government tried to convict her under a federal statute designed to go after terrorists and so she sued, claiming that she should have been convicted under an applicable state criminal statute.  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that Bond lacked standing to challenge the statute. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that a criminal defendant who has been convicted under a federal statute can challenge that conviction on grounds that the statute is unconstitutional. In this particular case, the Court held that the statute exceeded the federal government’s powers with respect to the Tenth Amendment.  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion:

“The federal system rests on what might at first seem a counter-intuitive insight, that “freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 758 (1999). The Framers concluded that allocation of powers between the National Government and the States enhances freedom, first by protecting the integrity of the governments themselves, and second by protecting the people, from whom all governmental powers are derived.

The principles of limited national powers and state sovereignty are intertwined.  While neither originates in the Tenth Amendment, both are expressed by it. Impermissible interference with state sovereignty is not within the enumerated powers of the National Government, see New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144 (1992), at 155–159, and action that exceeds the National Government’s enumerated powers undermines the sovereign interests of States.  See United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 564 (1995). The unconstitutional action can cause concomitant injury to persons in individual cases.

Federalism has more than one dynamic. It is true that the federal structure serves to grant and delimit the prerogatives and responsibilities of the States and the National Government vis-à-vis one another. The allocation of powers in our federal system preserves the integrity, dignity, and residual sovereignty of the States.  The federal balance is, in part, an end in itself, to ensure that States function as political entities in their own right.

But that is not its exclusive sphere of operation. Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. “State sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.

Some of these liberties are of a political character. The federal structure allows local policies ‘more sensitive to the diverse needs of a heterogeneous society,’ permits ‘innovation and experimentation,’ enables greater citizen ‘involvement in democratic processes,’ and makes government ‘more responsive by putting the States in competition for a mobile citizenry.’  [All of these would protect and enlarge individual liberty and protect against an oppressive "one-size-fits-all" approach].

Federalism secures the freedom of the individual. It allows States to respond, through the enactment of positive law, to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times without having to rely solely upon the political processes that control a remote central power. True, of course, these objects cannot be vindicated by the Judiciary in the absence of a proper case or controversy; but the individual liberty secured by federalism is not simply derivative of the rights of the States.

Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. [See ibid]. By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake.

The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.”

The outcome of this historic case against the massively oppressive healthcare reform bill will no doubt shape the legacy of the Roberts’ Court, influence President Obama’s re-election prospects, and potentially deepen the ideological rift that is already dividing the country.  But most importantly, the outcome will determine what impact the US Constitution still has on protecting the individual from the pernicious reaches of government.

References:

United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).  Referenced at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html

Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. ___ (2010).

“Anthony A. Kennedy,” NY Times, March 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/anthony_m_kennedy/index.html

Transcript and Audio for Monday’s Arguments:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74477.html

Transcript and Audio for Tuesday’s Arguments:  http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate

Transcript and Audio for Wednesday’s Arguments:  http://www.npr.org/2012/03/28/149548299/transcript-audio-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-medicaid-expansion

Audio for Tuesday’s arguments:  http://apne.ws/Hft6z3

Audio for Wednesday’s arguments:  http://apne.ws/GX1p23  (morning) and  http://apne.ws/GXdZOP  (afternoon).

“The Supreme Court Arguments Are Over – What Happens Now?,” Kaiser Health News, March 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/March/29/supreme-court-big-picture-wrap-up.aspx

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Christian Derangement Syndrome – Bill Maher and the Huffington Post Have It !

 

 

 

 

by Diane Rufino

Not long ago, a blogger wrote: “Recently, my Biology teacher threw a bible across the classroom! Not that I am a Christian, but that’s not how you treat other peoples religion. When we asked him why he did it, he said ‘That book is full of lies.’ Every time I’m in his class, he always talks about how there are many mistakes in the Bible.  He’s always criticizing the Bible.”

What is it about Christianity that causes so many people to become deranged?  Why do they it so much more than other religions?

Years ago, liberals suffered a similar type of derangement whenever President Bush was in the limelight. It was called the Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).  Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was a perfect example. She couldn’t pass an opportunity to use the microphone, on any occasion, to call Bush names and criticize his every move. I remember one year, President Bush started his State of the Union Address by congratulating Pelosi on being the first woman Speaker of the House and graciously introducing her as a woman of integrity.  She sat there, all smiles, taking in the moment and lavishing the praise he was giving her in front of the entire nation.  Yet the minute the Address was concluded and Pelosi was able to get in front of a microphone, her demeanor changed, the rabies kicked in, and she let loose a vitriolic diatribe against Bush.  I believe I saw saliva foaming at her mouth.  The foaming was not always indicative of BDS, but we often saw it in members of the liberal media.  Its goal was not necessarily to show that President Bush was bad for the country – because they never were able to make that case – but rather to show that he was bad for people’s mental health.  At least that’s the way I saw it.

And now we have a similar syndrome – Christian Derangement Syndrome.  Similarly, while their goal apparently is to show that Christians are bad for the country, they will never be able to make that case. In fact, the more they carry on, it’s much clearer that they are the ones that are harmful.  Rather, their default goal is to show that Christians are bad for the mental health of non-believers.

A teacher at Capistrano Valley High School in Mission Viejo, California, was  accused of violating the Establishment Clause by repeatedly making statements critical and derogatory of religion in his AP European History class.  For example, he told his class: “When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.”

He also said: “Aristotle was a physicist. … He argued that there has to be a God.  Of course that’s nonsense.”  And he made this comment, among many others: “The people who want to make the argument that God did it, there is as much evidence that God did it as there is that there is a giant spaghetti monster living behind the moon.”  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the teacher was using appropriate critical thinking skills to teach his students.  I imagine that if it were the other way around, and the teacher had been praising God, the Ninth Circuit would have held that there was an improper establishment of religion.

A kindergarten teacher in New Jersey saw the name “Jesus” on a Thanksgiving poster made by one of her students and instantly removed it from a display she made of the class posters out in the hall.  God forbid someone should walk by and see that name!!  In the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, the teacher asked the students to make posters depicting what they were “thankful for.”  The child at issue wanted to thank Jesus. The child was 5 years old.  It was a kindergarten hallway. Imagine the confusion the child suffered, being taught one thing at home and in church but being punished for it by her teacher.

And then there’s the personal, one-man crusade led by rabid atheist Michael Newdow.  He is the man who went to court to try to stop children from being able to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school because it includes the offensive phrase “Under God.”  He alleged that the words “under God” in the pledge amounted to an establishment of religion, in violation of the First Amendment. He brought the case on behalf of his 9-year-old daughter who he didn’t even have custody of.  He also brought the case in spite of the fact that the girl herself wanted to continue saying the pledge and didn’t want the lawsuit filed.  The district court held the pledge was constitutional but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 vote, reversed the decision and held that recitation of the pledge with the words “under God” in the school system violated the Establishment Clause.   To celebrate the decision by the Court of Appeals, Time Magazine did a story on Newdow and made him their “Person of the Week.”

[The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court in 2004. The Court held that Michael Newdow didn't have standing to bring the case in the first place, so the pledge was affirmed].

A little over fifty years ago, in 1954, when the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by Congress, the vote was unanimous. The decision to insert the words “under God” was made “to recognize a Supreme Being” and advance religion at a time “when the government was publicly fighting against atheistic communism.” Furthermore, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act which added the phrase “under God,” he announced: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty.”

In light of this bit of history and Congressional intent, it took a lot of arrogance for a federal judge to rule it was unconstitutional.  The pledge is symbolic; it is not a prayer and never intended to be.  It just goes to show how messed up our legal system has become.

The Pledge of Allegiance is a short statement of patriotic recognition for what this country stands for.  The words hold much meaning, particularly to those who have learned and who appreciate our history.  There are many commentaries attesting to the meaning of the pledge, but one that has always stuck with me is the video by a real comedian, Red Skelton.  I still have this video on my computer, where I watch it from time to time.  On his television program many many years ago, he told the story of one of his teachers, Mr. Laswell, who felt the students didn’t have a proper appreciation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Skelton recited this story of Mr. Laswell:  “He said to the class: “I’ve been listening to you boys and girls recite the Pledge of Allegiance all semester and it seems as though it is becoming monotonous to you. If I may, I would like to recite it to you and explain the meaning of each word:

I — me, an individual, a committee of one.

PLEDGE — dedicate all of my worldly goods to give without self pity.

ALLEGIANCE — my love and my devotion.

TO THE FLAG — our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Wherever she waves, there’s respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts freedom is everybody’s job!

UNITED — that means that we have all come together.

STATES — individual communities that have united into 48 great states. Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose; all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that’s love for country.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC — a state in which sovereign power is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people and it’s from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.

FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION — one nation, meaning “so blessed by God”

INDIVISIBLE — incapable of being divided.

WITH LIBERTY — which is freedom — the right of power to live one’s own life without threats, fear or some sort of retaliation.

AND JUSTICE — the principle or quality of dealing fairly with others.

FOR ALL — which means, boys and girls, it’s as much your country as it is mine.”

Skelton went on to explain that since the time he was a small boy and had Mr. Laswell as a teacher, “two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance… UNDER GOD.”

He asked his audience: “Wouldn’t it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?”  (The Red Skelton Show aired in the 60′s and into the early 70′s; In that last question, he was noting that prayer itself had already been removed from schools)

Well, Michael Newdow indeed tried to argue before the Supreme Court that the pledge was a prayer. And he nearly got away with it.

But Newdow wasn’t done trying to dismantle traditional national institutions recognizing our Christian heritage.  He tried to stop the invocation prayer at President George Bush’s inaugural in 2005.  Clearly the obsessive desire he has to root out all mention of “God” and wipe out all prayer has caused him to become deranged. If he’s not in an institution somewhere, then I’m sure he plotting his next lawsuit. Such contempt and disrespect he has to the overwhelming number of Americans who believe in God and understand the role religion has played in our history and continues to play in the guidance of proper moral and social values.

Recent surveys show that almost 85% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. Less than 2% are atheists or agnostics.

Almost 60% of Americans think that Intelligent Design should be taught in the public school system as an alternative to Darwin’s Theory to discuss the origin and diversity of species on Earth.  They believe that the  universe is so complex that it must have been created by a higher being with a purpose. But organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Education Association would never allow that to happen because they can’t seem get past the association of Intelligent Design with a Higher Power or God.  Heaven forbid.

Aside from the outright attacks against Christianity we hear about in the news – the legal battles to remove or hide crosses, stop prayers, remove the name “Jesus Christ,” whitewash our national Christian heritage – there are the more insidious kinds… the ones that take the form of subtle propaganda, such as the messages put out by department stores, corporations, and other businesses.  Remember the days when companies held fun Christmas parties for their employees?  Remember enjoying a Christmas tree in your company’s atrium or even in your department?  Now, such parties either have been done away with or have been replaced with a “Happy Holidays” and the tree is now called a “holiday tree.”  Why aren’t these big companies concerned about how Christians feel about the substitution of “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas?” Why aren’t department stores concerned that Christians might not shop their stores?   Maybe it’s time that they hear from Christians and feel their economic wrath.

Recently, the attacks have gotten personal, and in my opinion, ugly and hateful.  They have certainly gone beyond any realm of decent behavior. Rick Santorum, a man who takes his faith seriously and lives by its tenets, including making the loving decision to have and raise a child born with a potential life-threatening disability, has been ridiculed up and down about his religious stance. Reporter Reza Aslan compared Santorum to the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei and wrote: “One is a religious fanatic railing against secularism, the role of women in the workplace, and the evils of higher education, as he seeks to impose his draconian moral values upon the state. The other is the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow, who praises Jesus after interviews or goes on bended knee after a touchdown as a tribute to God, is apparently the new “polarizing figure in sports” because of his squeaky clean image, his bubbly personality, and his courage to wear his faith on his sleeve. He doesn’t carry a gun, he hasn’t used one at a night club, he hasn’t killed anyone, he hasn’t assaulted anyone or beat up his wife/girlfriend, he hasn’t raped anyone, he doesn’t use drugs or hasn’t been arrested for possession, he didn’t kill dogs, or hasn’t run over innocent pedestrians while driving drunk. But it is Tebow who brings out hatred in people and encourages their foul insults.  Again, it’s the Christian Derangement Syndrome (CDS). Megan Kelly of FOX News made a noteworthy comment: “I have a feeling that the people who don’t like Tim Tebow doing it wouldn’t have a problem in our hyper-sensitive world if a Muslim did it.”  And we all know this is true.

The view of many atheists is that belief in God is a form of stupidity, which often leads to a diatribe of how they supremely intelligent they are.

The Huffington Post published an article on February 24, 2012 which not only amounted to a gross personal attack on Santorum for being a Catholic, but proceeded to use the most vile and derogatory terms to characterize that religion and its practices. The author said the Catholic Church is the tactical arm of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, the ritual of communion is nothing more than a fake spell cast over wafers and wine so parishioners can partake in a “cannabalistic reverie,” and the Pope is too pre-occupied with “vaginas and anuses.”  If such lewd terms had been used against Muslims, there would be such an outburst of violence, that Obama would be apologizing up and down and side to side in an effort to control it.

Ironically, the Huffington Post wrote the following in an article only seven months earlier: “The issue of freedom of speech and the rights of hate groups is not new in American history. Even today, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic organizations are allowed to express their disdain for certain ethnic and religious groups, regardless of how distasteful their ideologies may be.”  They neglected to include their own organization with those hate groups.

Freedom of religion is the ability to live your life based upon your religious teachings.  Our Founding colonists came here to America’s shores to escape the persecution that came from believing in religious tenets that differed from what the Church of England dictated.  Our Founding Fathers and framers of our government compacts (constitutions, both federal and state) sought to protect the right of religious liberty.

The strict purpose of the establishment clause of the First Amendment was never to require a strict neutrality between religion and non-religion. It was designed to prohibit Congress from establishing a national church, from designating a particular faith. As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created federal government. The Establishment Clause was not designed to interfere with existing state establishments. In fact, each State was left free to go its own way and pursue its own policy with respect to religion. It was never intended for a “one-size fits all” approach for each state. This was evidenced by provisions in state constitutions which were often very different from the US Constitution.  For example, Massachusetts had an established church until well into the nineteenth century.  Virginia, on the other hand, had always pursued a policy of disestablishmentarianism – a separation of politics and religion.

And that’s pretty much how matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment which was a complete game-changer for this country.  The amendment, inspired by the need to protect the civil rights of newly-emancipated slaves, quickly became a tool for the federal government to regulate and assimilate the States into a nationalized union rather than a federal union.  Rep. John Bingham (of Ohio), who proposed the Amendment on January 12, 1866, offered this explanation (in 1871): “The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article. To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the express limitations upon the States contained in the first section of the fourteenth amendment, together with the grant of power in Congress to enforce them by legislation, were incorporated in the Constitution.”  [House Report No. 22]   Bingham also stated: “If the rebel States would make no denial of right to emancipated citizens no [Fourteenth] Amendment would be needed. But they will make denial.”  [P. A. Madison, "Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section"]  Many believe that the Amendment was intended to give legal effect to the Civil Rights Bill of 1866, which was designed to put an end to the criminal black codes established under former rebel States that at the time were being administered under policies of President Andrew Johnson.

In 1940, in a case known as Cantwell v. Connecticut in 1940, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment was broad enough to bring the First Amendment’s religious prohibitions upon the States . In that case the Court said: “The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws.”  It reached this interpretation despite the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment and despite the very words of the Supreme Court in South Carolina v. United States (1905) – “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.”

The question to ask, under the 14th Amendment is this: “Is the Establishment Clause one of the fundamental rights growing out of citizenship of the United States, and therefore applicable to the States such that black citizens cannot be denied such a right?”  (as per the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment)  The right in the Establishment Clause is the right not to have the US Congress impose a national religion. Hence this right should have never been imputed to the States because it was clearly written and intended as a federal prohibition only.

Today, Americans are more incompetent than ever in truly understanding what their Constitution provides and why it was designed as it was.  There are still too many who don’t understand the intent of the First Amendment and don’t realize that our Founders and the ratifying States chose their words carefully when they drafted the particular amendments which became the Bill of Rights. “The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition.”  (The Supreme Court in Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824).  Americans believe blindly in the “Wall of Separation,” which appears nowhere in the Constitution.  They’ve heard it so often by liberals in the media and probably from their own liberal teachers and professors that it has become engrained in their vocabulary and their understanding, just like the terms “global warming” and “sustainable living” are becoming the catch phrases for government regulation and controlled development. They believe the “Wall” is an imaginary, high, impenetrable wall mandated by the government (endorsed enthusiastically by the courts) that requires a complete disconnect between itself and religion. But from the moment that horrible phrase entered constitutional jurisprudence and became law and defined the new intent of our First Amendment, it re-wired our collective national understanding and initiated the outward hostility to our founding religion has crept into our historically-Christian nation. [Everson v. Board of Education (1947)].  In reality the hostility preceded that decision, and in fact, it was for that very reason that Thomas Jefferson’s statement in a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists about a “wall of separation between Church and State” was twisted and misinterpreted. The Supreme Court justice who delivered the decision and wrote the opinion, Justice Hugo Black, was a ranking KKK official who promoted “the Separation of Church in State” for the express purpose of keeping the influence of Christians OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

In his book Persecution, David Limbaugh wrote: “Anti-Christian discrimination occurs in a variety of contexts throughout our culture, from the public sector to the private sector, in the mainstream media and in Hollywood, in the public education system and in our universities. Often the discrimination comes from activist judges misinterpreting the law (the hostility to Christian religious freedom infects our judiciary as much as anywhere else); other times it comes from entities misapplying the law. It also comes from what we call ‘political correctness.’ The discrimination mostly stems from a hostility to Christianity and from rampant disinformation in our society about what the Constitution actually requires in terms of the so-called ‘separation of church and state’.”

The Courts have not treated the first amendment right of religious freedom as kindly as they have treated the first amendment right of free speech, the latter of which is capable of greater alienation and offense.  “Overall, the Court has been far more hospitable to free speech cases than to cases involving religious expression or exercise. In the speech area, the courts have taken a somewhat monolithic approach: protecting the speech no matter what the argument for censorship is. Everything from sexually explicit speech to hateful insults to flag-burning to offensive art to profanity is protected, all under the theory that the marketplace of ideas requires the most speech possible. Almost never do the courts look into what discomfort or antagonism the speech might cause, nor into how valuable the speech is for a democratic society. And yet, in Establishment Clause cases, judges justify their restricting of religious expression on any number of grounds, many of which relate to perceptions of the social divisiveness or alienation that religion might cause.”  [Patrick Mr. Garry, "The Cultural Hostility to Religion"]

Our Founders proposed several different versions of the First Amendment before the final wording was settled upon.  Looking at those earlier drafts, it is abundantly clear that our Founders, and especially the States to our federal compact (US Constitution) were not trying to prevent a complete separation of Church and State.  They were intent on forbidding a national religion, as they had in England.  In 1983, in the case of Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners, Judge Brevard Hand quoted former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story who clarified the original meaning of the First Amendment: “The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations) and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government.”

Our Founding Fathers certainly never envisioned that our government would become hostile to the very liberty that brought our early settlers here in the first place – the freedom to freely exercise one’s faith.

But Jefferson was suspicious.  He was suspicious of a federal judiciary who would assume the power of being the final arbiter on the meaning of the Constitution. In a letter to Abigail Adams, he wrote: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”  He warned us to be suspicious of the federal judiciary who might twist the meaning of the right of religious freedom.  On September 6, 1819, he wrote:  “The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (America’s God and Country, p. 330).  And that they certainly did.

Our history is rich in examples of how the Christian religion formed our foundation and the early great character of our nation. First and foremost, 52 out of 55 of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention were “orthodox, evangelical Christians.” These same gentlemen would go on to push for greater assurances of individual liberty – with a Bill of Rights.  It is safe to assume that had our Founders not been such strong believers, if they had not possessed such servants’ hearts, we would not be blessed with the inspired documents that so strongly and profoundly form the foundation of our country.

Atheists like to point out that our Founders were deists, but the importance of religion in their lives, in their thinking, in the way they served their states and their country, and especially in the way they crafted our government and secured our rights are undeniable.  Our nation is truly a Christian nation. Many of our most important Founding Fathers, including George Washington, were strong believers.

George Washington, our most devoted and selfless public servant, delivered one of the most important political speeches in our nation’s history when he offered a farewell address in 1796 and talked about the importance of religion.  He said:

“I shall carry with me to my grave……   May heaven continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it…  On an occasion like the present, I offer sentiments which are the result of much reflection and which appear to me all-important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you as the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize.  The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated.

How far in the discharge of my official duties I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have at least believed myself to be guided by them.”

An article about Washington’s faith appeared in an early newspaper called The National Tribune. It was a post-Civil War publication (forerunner to today’s Stars and Stripes magazine), published for the men and women in the armed forces), and intended as a forum for old soldiers to share their reminiscences. The article was entitled “George Washington’s Vision” at Valley Forge and described an eyewitness account by a soldier named Anthony Sherman of an direct encounter with General George Washington. Sherman was a soldier in the Continental Army and claimed to be at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-1778.  The article is as follows:

“The last time I ever saw Anthony Sherman was on the fourth of July, 1859, in Independence Square. He was then 99 years old, and becoming very feeble. But though so old, his dimming eyes rekindled as he gazed upon Independence Hall, which he had come to visit once more.

‘Let’s go into the hall,’ he said. ‘I want to tell you of an incident of Washington’s life — one which no one alive knows of except myself; and if you live, you will before long see it verified. Mark the prediction, you will see it verified.

From the opening of the Revolution we experienced all phases of fortune, now good and now ill, one time victorious and another conquered. The darkest period we had, I think, was when Washington after several reverses, retreated to Valley Forge, where he resolved to pass the winter of 1777. Ah! I have often seen the tears coursing down our dear commander’s careworn cheeks, as he would be conversing with a confidential officer about the condition of his poor soldiers. You have doubtless heard the story of Washington’s going into the thicket to pray. Well, it was not only true, but he used to pray often in secret for aid and comfort. And God brought us safely through the darkest days of tribulation.

One day, I remember it well, the chilly winds whistled through the leafless trees, though the sky was cloudless and the sun shone brightly. He remained in his quarters nearly all the afternoon, alone. When he came out I noticed that his face was a shade paler than usual, and there seemed to be something on his mind of more than ordinary importance. Returning just after dusk, he dispatched an orderly to the quarters of an officer, who was presently in attendance. After a preliminary conversation of about half an hour, Washington, gazing upon his companion with that strange look of dignity which he alone could command, said to the latter:

I do not know whether it is owing to the anxiety of my mind, or what, but this afternoon, as I was sitting at this table engaged in preparing a dispatch, something in the apartment seemed to disturb me. Looking up, I beheld standing opposite me a singularly beautiful being. So astonished was I, for I had given strict orders not to be disturbed, that it was some moments before I found language to inquire the cause of the visit. A second, a third, and even a fourth time did I repeat the question, but received no answer from my mysterious visitor except a slight raising of the eyes.

But this time I felt strange sensations spreading over me. I would have risen but the riveted gaze of the being before me rendered volition impossible. I assayed once more to speak, but my tongue had become useless, as if paralyzed. A new influence, mysterious, potent, irresistible, took possession of me. All I could do was to gaze steadily, vacantly at my unknown visitor.

Gradually the surrounding atmosphere seemed to fill with sensations, and grew luminous.  Everything about me seemed to rarefy, the mysterious visitor also becoming more airy and yet more distinct to my eyes than before. I began to feel as one dying, or rather to experience the sensations which I have sometimes imagined accompany death. I did not think, I did not reason, I did not move. All were alike impossible. I was only conscious of gazing fixedly, vacantly at my companion.

Presently I heard a voice saying, ‘Son of the Republic, look and learn,’ while at the same time my visitor extended an arm EASTWARD. I now beheld a heavy white vapor at some distance rising fold upon fold. This gradually dissipated, and I looked upon a strange scene. Before me lay, spread out in one vast plain, all the countries of the world — Europe, Asia, Africa and America. I saw rolling and tossing between Europe and America the billows of the Atlantic, and between Asia and  America lay the Pacific. ‘Son of the Republic,’ said the same mysterious voice as before, ‘Look and learn.’

At that moment I beheld a dark, shadowy being, like an angel, standing, or rather floating in midair, BETWEEN EUROPE AND AMERICA. Dipping water out of the ocean in the hollow of each  hand, he sprinkled some upon America with his right hand, while with his left he cast some over Europe. Immediately a cloud arose from these countries, and joined in mid-ocean. For a while it seemed stationary, and then it moved slowly WESTWARD, until it enveloped America in its murky folds. Sharp flashes of lightning gleamed through it at intervals, and I heard the smothered groans and cries of the American people.

A second time the angel dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it out as before. The dark cloud was then drawn back to the ocean, in whose heavy billows it sank from view.

A third time I heard the mysterious visitor saying, ‘Son of the Republic, look and learn.’ I cast my eyes upon America and beheld villages and towns and cities springing up one after another  until the whole land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was spotted with them. Again, I heard the mysterious voice say, ‘Son of the Republic, the end of the century cometh, look and listen.’

And this time the dark shadowy angel turned his face SOUTHWARD. From AFRICA I saw an ill-omened specter approach our land. It flitted slowly and heavily over every town and city of  the latter. The inhabitants presently set themselves in battle array against each other. As I continued looking I saw a bright angel on whose brow rested a crown of light, on which was traced the word ‘Union.’  He was bearing the American flag. He placed the flag between the DIVIDED NATION and said, ‘Remember, ye are brethren.’

Instantly, the inhabitants, casting down their weapons, became friends once more and UNITED around the National Standard.

Again I heard the mysterious voice saying, ‘Son of the Republic, look and learn.’ At this the dark, shadowy angel placed a  trumpet to his mouth, and blew three distinct blasts; and taking water from the ocean, he sprinkled it upon Europe, Asia and Africa.

Then my eyes beheld a fearful scene. From each of these continents arose thick black clouds that were soon joined into one. And through this mass there gleamed a dark red light by which I saw hordes of armed men. These men, moving with the cloud, marched by land and sailed by sea to America, which country was enveloped in the volume of the cloud. And I dimly saw these vast armies devastate the whole country and burn the villages, towns and cities which I had seen springing up.

As my ears listened to the thundering of the cannon, clashing of sounds and the shouts and cries of millions in mortal combat, I again heard the mysterious voice saying, “Son of the Republic, look and learn.” When this voice had ceased, the dark shadowy angel placed his trumpet once more to his mouth, and blew a long and fearful blast.

Instantly a light as of a thousand suns shone down from above me, and pierced and broke into fragments the dark cloud which enveloped America. At the same moment the angel  upon whose head still shone the word ‘Union,’ and who bore our national flag in one hand and a sword in the other, descended from the heavens attended by legions of white spirits. These immediately joined the inhabitants of America, who I perceived were well-nigh overcome, but who immediately taking courage again, closed up their broken  ranks and renewed the battle.

Again, amid the fearful noise of the conflict I heard the mysterious voice saying, ‘Son of the Republic, look and learn.’ As the voice ceased, the shadowy angel for the last time dipped water from the ocean and sprinkled it upon America. Instantly the dark cloud rolled back, together with the armies it had brought, leaving the inhabitants of the land victorious.

Then once more, I beheld the villages, towns and cities springing up where I had seen them before, while the bright angel, planting the azure standard he had brought in the midst of them, cried with a loud voice: ‘While the stars remain, and the heavens send down dew upon the earth, so long shall the Union last.’ And taking from his brow the crown on which blazoned the word ‘Union,’ he placed it upon the standard while the people kneeling down said, ‘Amen.’

The scene instantly began to fade and dissolve, and I at last saw nothing but the rising, curling vapor I at first beheld. This also disappeared, and I found myself once more gazing upon the mysterious visitor, who in the same voice I had heard before, said, ‘Son of the Republic, what you have seen is thus interpreted. THREE GREAT PERILS will come upon the Republic. THE MOST FEARFUL FOR HER IS THE THIRD.  But the whole world united shall not prevail against her. Let every child of the Republic LEARN TO LIVE FOR HIS GOD, his land and Union.’ With these words the vision vanished, and I started from my seat and felt that I had seen a vision wherein had been shown me the birth, the progress, and the destiny of the United States.

‘Such, my friends,’ the venerable narrator concluded, ‘were the words I heard from Washington’s own lips, and America will do well to profit by them.’”

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), the French statesman and historian who spent time in America studying why its political system was successful and wrote his observations and conclusions in his famous book, Democracy in America.  He described the relationship between character and society in America, but noted that it was the religious aspect of our country that first caught his attention.  He wrote: “Religion in America…. must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country.”

De Tocqueville also wrote:

“I have known of societies formed by the Americans to send out ministers of the Gospel into the new Western States to found schools and churches there, lest religion should be suffered to die away in those remote settlements, and the rising States be less fitted to enjoy free institutions than the people from which they emanated. I met with wealthy New Englanders who abandoned the country in which they were born in order to lay the foundations of Christianity and of freedom on the banks of the Missouri, or in the prairies of Illinois. Thus religious zeal is perpetually stimulated in the United States by the duties of patriotism. These men do not act from an exclusive consideration of the promises of a future life; eternity is only one motive of their devotion to the cause; and if you converse with these missionaries of Christian civilization, you will be surprised to find how much value they set upon the goods of this world, and that you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest. They will tell you that ‘all the American republics are collectively involved with each other; if the republics of the West were to fall into anarchy, or to be mastered by a despot, the republican institutions which now flourish upon the shores of the Atlantic Ocean would be in great peril. It is, therefore, our interest that the new States should be religious, in order to maintain our liberties.’

Such are the opinions of the Americans, and if any hold that the religious spirit which I admire is the very thing most amiss in America, and that the only element wanting to the freedom and happiness of the human race is to believe in some blind cosmogony, or to assert with Cabanis the secretion of thought by the brain, I can only reply that those who hold this language have never been in America, and that they have never seen a religious or a free nation. When they return from their expedition, we shall hear what they have to say.     [Democracy in America, Vol, 1, pp. 311-312]

Patrick Henry wrote: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians.”

Thomas Jefferson, not one to discuss his particular religious beliefs with others, sent a letter to Benjamin Rush on April 1803 in which he wrote:  “To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other.”

He wrote the following to Thomas Pickering in 1827:  “[With respect to] the pure and simple doctrines he (Jesus) inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily his disciples. It is my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I do not know that you and I may think alike on all points… As the Creator has made no two faces alike, so no two minds, and probably no two creeds, we well know that there are shades of differences. There may be peculiarities in your creed and in mine and they are honestly formed without doubt. I do not wish to trouble the world with mine, nor to be troubled for them. These matters are to be settled only with Him who made us; and to Him we leave it, with charity for all others, of whom also he is the only rightful and competent judge. I have little doubt that the whole of our country will soon be rallied to the Unity of the Creator, and, I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also.”

Thomas Jefferson was so pleased that he had helped to secure religious freedom in our new nation, that he specifically wanted that title to be listed on his epitaph.  His epitaph reads: “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, Author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, and Father of the University of Virginia.”  It was Jefferson’s wish that his tomb stone reflect the things that he had given the people, and not the things that the people had given to him.

Joseph Story, a member of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time also a professor at Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the US Constitution. Volume 2 of Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed. 1891; pp. 630-632) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way: “Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Thomas Cooley, who was as renown a legal school as Joseph Story, also wrote a treatise on the US Constitution, entitled Constitutional Limitations. In that treatise, he explained that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the US Constitution, but he went on to say:  “But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws.  This public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order….  No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . .” (pp. 470- 471).

As presented in an article by Dee Wampler – “Never Hostile to Religion” (2005) – political science professors at the University of Houston collected all the writings from America’s founding era to see whom the Founders were quoting. Researchers assembled more than 15,000 writings. The project spanned 10 years, and by the end of their work, researchers isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by the Founders, and identified the sources of these quotes. The man most quoted was Baron de Montesquieu (8.3%). Sir William Blackstone was second (7.9%) and John Locke was third (2.9%)). Surprisingly, researchers discovered that the Founders quoted directly out of the Bible four times more often than they quoted Montesquieu, four times more than Blackstone, and 12 times more than John Locke. In all, 34%  all the Founders’ quotes came directly out of the Bible.

Our Christian heritage was so firmly respected that in 1892, in the case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. . . . This is a Christian nation.”  The decision did not mean, however, that the Supreme Court was endorsing Christianity as the official religion because that would offend the very intention of the First Amendment.  It was the heritage that the Court was acknowledging.  The decision also read: “There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania.”

Other examples of our how Christianity impacted our founding , our view of government and society, and our culture include the following:

1.  The Declaration of Independence reads, “All men . . . are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

2.  When the US Congress met for the first time under the Constitution, in 1789, one of its very first actions was to appoint chaplains in both Houses.

3.  On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Rep. Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation, assigning a day of national thanksgiving. The wording was as follows: A proclamation should be issued such that “the President recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

4.  President Washington then issued such a proclamation (similar to an Executive Order), assigning a day of national prayer and thanks to God.  Congress made it an official national holiday in 1941.  (See below for the official Presidential Proclamation)

5.  Every president of the United States (with only one possible exception) has been administered the oath of office with his hand on the Bible, ending with the words “So help me God.”

6.  The Supreme Court begins every proceeding with the ringing proclamation “God save the United States and this honorable Court.”

7.  All currency bears our national motto, “In God we trust.”

8.  The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag affirms that we are “one nation under God.” Congress would not allow a comma to be placed after the word nation, in order to reflect the basic idea that ours is a “nation founded on a belief in God.”

9.  In 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most liberal federal appeals court, has upheld the phrase “Under God” in the pledge. The Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any challenges to the phrase.

10.  The National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., exhibits arts with religious messages, including The Sacrament of the Last Supper, The Birth of Christ, The Crucifixion, and The Resurrection, among many others with explicit Christian themes and messages.

11.  Legislative prayers have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

12.  Tax exemptions for church properties were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

13.  Congress approves of federal grants for college buildings of church-sponsored institutions.

14.  Engraved on the metal cap of the Washington Monument are the Latin words Laus Deo, which mean “Praise be to God.”

[including references to "Never Hostile to Religion," Liberty Magazine]

In issuing his Presidential Proclamation to set aside a day of national thanksgiving, President George Washington wrote:  ”Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.  And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”

Our Founding Fathers believed that religion has an important role in this country. They believed that good citizens derive moral guidance from the precepts of Christianity and that moral guidance was essential in the proper governing of society and the integrity of the republic.  As John Adams declared: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Even ultra-liberal President Woodrow Wilson admitted that “America was born a Christian nation.”

The doctrine prohibiting government inhibition of religion can be traced through some significant U.S. Supreme Court cases. In 1984, Chief Justice Warren Earl Burger delivered the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case of Lynch v. Donnelly, which held that the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island did not violate the Constitution by displaying a Nativity scene. Noting that presidential orders and proclamations from Congress have designated Christmas as a national holiday in religious terms for two centuries and in the Western world for twenty centuries, he wrote: “There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life…The Constitution does not require a complete separation of Church and State. It affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions and forbids hostility towards any….Anything less would require the ‘callous indifference’ we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into a war with our national tradition as embodied by the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion.”

In 1963, avowed and rabid atheist and hedonist, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, brought suit to challenge a Pennsylvania statute that called for the reading of ten verses from the Bible, “along with the pledge of allegiance,” to start every morning in the public schools. After reflecting on the Bible versions, students were then required to recite the Lord’s prayer. (The law permitted students to be excluded from these exercises by a written note from their parents to the school). It was that landmark case, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, in which the Supreme Court effectively took religion out of public school. It struck down the statute as offending both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.  But despite its damage, the Court wrote that some degree of religious acknowledgment – some religious exercises – must be allowed.  “It is insisted that unless these religious exercises are permitted, a ‘religion of secularism’ is established in the schools. We agree of course that the State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.”  In other words, if religion is completely excluded, then the school will have effectively adopted a ‘secular’ position or “religion of secularism” (no religion), and that is as equally forbidden under the First Amendment as the endorsement of one religion over another.  Although having the dubious distinction of removing religion from schools, Abington also stands for the principle that “opposing or showing hostility to religion” is the same as establishing a “religion of secularism” and “preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.” In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas the Court likewise held that “The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion” and “the State may not adopt programs or practices in its public schools or colleges which ‘aid or oppose’ any religion. This prohibition is absolute.”  Consistent with this general principle and continuing to recognize it, the Court, in 1990, ruled that state action is impermissible when it “would demonstrate not neutrality but hostility toward religion.”

In 1985, William Rehnquist, then an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, sought to emphasize the Court’s error in Everson with its “Wall of Separation” rule.  In Wallace v. Jaffree, he delivered the dissenting opinion and wrote: ” It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment.… There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state] … The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers….  Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson “wall” has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo’s observation that “metaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it.” Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co. (1926).  But the greatest injury of the “wall” notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The ‘crucible of litigation’ is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The ‘wall of separation between church and State’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.  It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”

He also wrote in that dissenting opinion: “In Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States.  On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history. And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact.  Stare decisis (the policy of the courts to rely on preceding case law or “precedent”) may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them a to matters of history.  [Wallace v. Jaffree, pp. 2511-2512]

In other words, we are blindly following bad law.  The Supreme Court, a branch of the federal government, has established law that is contrary to what our Founders devised, which was based on what the States themselves submitted and then ratified. The current hostility to religion is offensive to every Supreme Court decision, except perhaps the offensive decision in Everson.

How else do you characterize a federal court decision to ban the mere mention of Jesus Christ in a student presentation or a valedictorian address at a high school commencement ceremony because it might “do irreparable harm to some students and families.”  What “irreparable harm” could come of hearing such a name?  The only “irreparable harm” that could occur is the confusion and frustration a child may suffer when he or she is taught to believe, offer praise when appropriate, seek prayer when needed, and not be ashamed and yet the school system classifies all that as a bad thing.  Why are the rights of atheists more important than Christians?  Why, in the name of tolerance, can’t a Christian publicly acknowledge the spiritual aspect of his or her life that has had an impact on his/her achievement?  Graduation is a personal achievement and I believe great latitude should be shown in one’s expression on that momentous occasion.  After all, isn’t it the same tolerance that students nowadays are forced to show gays/ lesbians/ transgenders/ atheists/ ethnic minorities in their schools?

Why the growing hostility to a religion that provided so strong a foundation to the nation that has given us so much freedom and security?  When did it become so hip and cool to openly criticize and denigrate Christians?  Why did the federal courts turn their back on history and become complicit in the rejection and  defamation of our most historically-relevant religion?

Is it the federal courts that have opened the door to the current wave of hostility to Christians which seems to be gaining momentum?

Jason Jackson noted the growing hostility to Christianity: “Its manifestations are seen in the advancement of moral decay, the dissemination of secularism, the reconstructionism of Christianity’s role in American history, and the demonizing of Christian values. Consequently, if you morally object to homosexuality, society labels you as a ‘homophobe’ and a bigot. If you advocate creationism, you are castigated as a back-woods, superstitious individual, who likely was abused at church camp. If you allude to the divine references in the Declaration of Independence, you are characterized as ignorant of the original intent.”  If you strongly express your deeply-felt belief in our national religious heritage, then our own government potentially classifies you as a “rightwing extremist,” capable of radicalizing others and therefore posing a grave security risk to this country.

[See the Homeland Security Report, issued by Secretary Janet Napolitano on April 7, 2009 entitled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"]

So-called comedian Bill Maher, an outspoken atheist and pig, let loose a profane tweet about Tim Tebow on Christmas following the Denver Broncos’ loss to the Buffalo Bills.  “Wow, Jesus just f—d #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere in hell Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,” he tweeted.  Tebowing,” of course, is the term inspired by the quarterback, to mean getting down on one knee to pray in a crowd no matter what else is going on.  Tebow’s conduct has been an easy target for ridicule, even inspiring a sketch on Saturday Night Live. He has even immortalized in song by some creative ESPN editors.

Maher, an unapologetic atheist, made a 2008 documentary called “Religulous,” which mocked organized religion.  He also routinely jokes about religion on his show.  If the tweet is any indication of his comedic talent, then it’s no wonder why no one thinks he’s funny or relevant.  On the other hand, Tebow is not only a brilliant and endearing quarterback, but he has also written the top-selling religious book of the year, “Through My Eyes” (a memoir) and has been named the Most Desirable Celebrity Neighbor by Zillow (which asks “Which celebrity would you most like to have as your neighbor?”)

Tebow didn’t bother to respond to Maher’s tweet.  Rather he posted: “Tough game today but what’s most important is being able to celebrate the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas everyone GB².”

GB2 is a phrase Tebow has made popular that means “God Bless + Go Broncos,” according to his official website.

But a week later, the morally-bankrupt Maher still couldn’t let go. He tweeted two photos of himself “Tebowing” (mimicking the prayer position that the beloved quarterback assumes on the football field).  In one photo, he assumed the pose in a tree, and added the caption: “Treebowing.”  He was yet another victim of the Christian Derangement Syndrome.

I’ve been writing about the growing hostility to religion for a few years now and it just keeps getting worse.  But I believe an all-time low was hit when Dick Doyle wrote an intensely offensive piece for the Huffington Post which was published on February 24 (in the ‘Comedy’ section). The article was entitled “The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum” and was an opportunity, under the guise of satire, to insult Christians and their religion.

In that article, Doyle opened the  by saying that we “should take a look at Rick Santorum’s faith.” A real journalist would genuinely find a real story in that topic, linking it to his firm commitment to marriage and family, to the willingness to have a disabled child (rather than abort it), and to his firm belief in the sanctity of every life, including the unborn.

But that wasn’t Doyle’s particular direction. To him, those very traits must indicate that Santorum is brainwashed by some evil, religious cult. Why else would Doyle write: “Many of you will be shocked to learn what our possible future president believes, who he answers to, the bloody jihads his so-called church has carried on for centuries, and its current role as the tactical arm of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.”

Personally, I think that if we’re “taking a look” at anyone’s religion, I think it should be Obama’s.

Doyle continued to spew more vile, contemptible drivel: “Unlike Christians, Santorum and his fellow Roman Catholics participate in a barbaric ritual dating back two millennia, a “mass” in which a black-robed cleric casts a spell over some bread and wine, transfiguring it into the actual living flesh and blood of their Christ. Followers then line up to eat the Jesus meat and drink his holy blood in a cannibalistic reverie not often seen outside Cinemax…

Roman Catholics like Santorum take their orders from “the Pope,” a high priest who, they believe, chats with God. Santorum has made no secret of his plans to implement his leader’s dicta on allowed uses of vaginas and anuses, but has said little about what additional dogma he will be compelled to obey……. Santorum has also remained silent on his religious organization’s various reigns of terror, in which good protestants and others were tortured and killed in imaginatively grisly ways. Even more chilling is a possible connection between the Roman Catholic Church pedophile program and NAMBLA, which I discovered after conducting some research on the internet.”

But the coup de grace was in the way he wrapped up his “humor piece” –  ”Need I remind you that only once in our great history has a Roman Catholic been elected president, and how tragically it ended?”

What was the purpose of that vile line?  My initial reaction was that it was hate speech. As Mike Opelka of The Blaze said: ” Nothing says funny like the assassination of a President.”

By the way, Doyle was a writer for such brainy hits as Beavis & Butt-head and The Simpsons – shows that I didn’t and still don’t permit my children to watch because time should be spent on building one’s mind and becoming more cultured, and not learning to act and speak like an idiot.

The article generated a lot of outrage, as any decent person could imagine. And in an attempt to acknowledge the pain and insult he caused religious groups, Dick Doyle offered an apology….   NOT !   What he wrote was this: “Actually, I’m not sorry at all, but I suppose an explanation is in order.  Last week, I wrote a piece with the somewhat provocative title ‘The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum.’ My criticism took the form of a ridiculously over-the-top broadside against Roman Catholicism, a demonstration of the type of vicious religious ignorance and intolerance I too often see coming from too many so-called Christians, especially Santorum. I won’t say that Catholics need to lighten up or learn to take a joke, because the piece wasn’t intended to be light-hearted or funny. It was satire, meaning… well, you can look that up…  It’s traditional at this point for me to half-apologize, to say that I’m sorry if anybody was offended, but I really don’t mind if anybody was offended. I hope they will now think twice before they question the faith of progressive Christians, or Mormons or Muslims. I doubt they will.”

Oh, and it appears I must offer an apology.  The writer’s name is Larry Doyle and not Dick Doyle.  My bad.  I guess I was confused because he acted like a Dick.

Needless to say, Catholics and others of faith are demanding that HuffPo editor Arianna Huffington  issue an apology for allowing a column to be published on her website that “compares Catholics to pedophiles and attacks communion as a ‘barbaric ritual.’” In a letter drafted to Ms. Huffington, protesters accuse the website of being ‘complicit in bigotry.” The letter was signed by Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center; Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage; Brian Burch, president of Catholic Vote; Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List; Richard Viguerie chairman of ConservativeHQ.com; and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.  Similarly, Catholics and others of faith should finally stand up and say: “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it!”  The only thing low-lives understand is being taken to task and being made to answer for their conduct.  What makes people low-lives is their belief that they can play by a different set of rules than the rest of society and their arrogance in that belief.

It’s always open season for Christians. Those who claim to embrace diversity are inclusive of such varied groups as gays, lesbians, transgenders, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, atheists….  that is, everyone EXCEPT CHRISTIANS.  And the very tolerance they demand from everyone for such groups as  gays and lesbians and transgenders is the very tolerance they are incapable of showing to Christians. A 2005 CNS News poll showed that 64%  of Americans believe that religion is under attack in this country. Those polled were selected at random.  Furthermore, 80% of those who identified themselves as fundamentalist/evangelical/charismatic Christians said they “are keenly aware” of such an attack, meaning that they feel it in their personal lives.

As Brian Koenig of The New American wrote: “Saying ‘Mexican’ rather than ‘Hispanic,’ asserting that the majority of welfare recipients are black, or suggesting that most terrorists are of Muslim descent are remarks often characterized as racist or derogatory. But associating Catholics with pedophiles and referring to communion as a “barbaric ritual” is, apparently, politically correct, at least, according to some standards.

The same people who criticized the planned burning of the Koran in Florida for its extreme insensitivity to Muslims seem to have no problem attacking the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism. Roman Catholic worship centers around the Eucharist – the ‘appearance’ of the body and blood of Christ through the transformation of bread and wine. To call Mass a “barbaric ritual” and “cannibalistic” moves beyond satire towards outright hatred.  Doyle’s article reeks of utter disrespect and contempt.

Just imagine if Doyle had written his piece mocking the prophet Mohammed.  In fact, I challenge him to do just that.  Why doesn’t he use the same pair of balls he used to write his article attacking the Catholic Church to write an equally scathing critique of Islam.

Between Doyle and Maher, we just don’t see the “humor” in a vicious, vile, mal-intentioned attack on Catholics or Christians in general.  Coming from an avowed atheist like Maher, there is no other way to take his remarks except with the contempt and hate they were inspired by.  Everyone cries when their civil rights are violated.  Courts had better start acknowledging that Christians have civil rights too.  Christians may have thick skin, unlike other religious and racial groups, but they have rights just like everyone else.

Ben Witherington wrote: “Psalm 14 says: ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’  How foolish indeed to confidently deny the existence of a Being simply because one has not yet personally found Him or been found by Him. This is the very definition of a lost, and in the end, unintelligent and unwise creature, standing as he does against the backdraft of the posture and position of most of the most brilliant minds in all ages of history, and spitting into the prevailing wind.”

Atheists are in denial about God because they are, in fact, in denial about their own nature and condition.  They don’t want to believe they are created in God’s image because they don’t want to acknowledge there are expectations and consequences for their lives.

Sadly, they don’t realize that had atheists founded this country and designed our foundation and drafted our founding documents, we would likely be just another failing democracy.  It is only in a country as profoundly free and dedicated to individual liberty and equality that they could have hoped to have the power they hold today.  And that power they hold is the power to destroy the very foundations and institutions which have made us strong and free.

There are clearly a lot of things happening in this country that indicate that we have increasing anarchy in this country. And for those who haven’t taken notice, the Obama administration and even members of Congress are reacting by giving the government greater powers to watch over us, investigate us, confiscate our property, and even detain and condemn us as “radicals” and “belligerents.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to equate the increasing immorality and anarchy with the decreasing emphasis we place on religion in our communities and in this country as a whole.  As the country turns away from Christianity, and even begins to discriminate against Christians, we continue to pay an even greater price, including our very freedoms.

The fact is that there is an energized bigotry in this country, endorsed by our current administration, fueled by the left-wing media, taken advantage of by the very small minority of atheists in this country against the Catholic religion and its insistence on maintaining its tenets, its conscience, and its projects in order to teach and instill morality in our depraved society and to bring a little of God’s light into a dark, Godless world. The Huffington Post is taking advantage of this bigotry for all it’s worth.

References:

Dee Wampler, ‘Never Hostile to Religion,” Liberty Magazine, July/August 2005.  Referenced at:  http://www.libertymagazine.org/index.php?id=1396

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (5th ed.), 1891.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. I, 1831.

Patrick Mr. Garry, “The Cultural Hostility to Religion,” First Principles, (written: Spring 2005).  Referenced at:  http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=786&theme=home&page=1&loc=b&type=cttf

House Report No. 22 Summarizing the 14 & 15th Amendments (January 30, 1871).  Referenced at: http://www.federalistblog.us/h-r-report-no-22-bingham/

P.A. Madison, “Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section,” Federalist Blog, Aug. 2, 2010.  Referenced at:  http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm

Rehnquist’s Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree (1985).  Referenced at:  http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm

Larry Doyle, “The Jesus-Eating Cult of Rick Santorum,” Huffington Post, Feb. 24, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-doyle/the-jesuseating-cult-of-r_b_1296358.html

John L. Esposito and Shiela B. Lalwani, ” Combating Religious Intolerance When Freedom of Speech Enables Hate Speech,” Huffington Post, July 7, 2011.  Referenced at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-l-esposito/combating-religious-intol_b_890537.html

Mike Opelka, “Outrage After HuffPo Contributor Calls Catholics “Jesus Eaters,” The Blaze, Feb. 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/outrage-after-huffpo-contributor-calls-catholics-jesus-eaters/

Conservative Leaders Demand Apology from Huffington Over Anti-Catholic Column,” Fox News, Feb. 29, 2012.  Referenced at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/28/conservative-leaders-demand-apology-from-huffington-over-anti-catholic-column/?intcmp=trending

Brian Koenig, “Huffington Post Urged to Apologize For Anti-Catholic Hate Screed,” The New American, March 1, 2012.  Referenced at:  ttp://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/11044-huffington-post-urged-to-apologize-for-anti-catholic-hate-screed

David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, Regnery Publishing (DC), 2003, p. ix-x

Jason Jackson, “Baseball, Apple Pie, and Persecution,” Christian Courier.  Referenced at:  http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1219-baseball-apple-pie-and-persecution

“Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796,” Yale Law School Library.  Referenced at:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

America’s Christian History: George Washington.  Referenced at:  http://www.whateveristrue.com/heritage/washington.htm

“Washington’s Vision,” Historic Valley Forge.  Referenced at:  http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/washington/vision.html  (also in the Library of Congress)

Jefferson’s Religious Beliefs,” Monticello.  Referenced at: http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs

Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

William J. Federer, ed., America’s God and Country, Fame Publishing Inc., 1996.

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence. (blog)   http://liberty-virtue-independence.blogspot.com/2009/09/seperation-examination-of-record.html  [The purpose of this blog is to inform readers of the profound positive influence of Christianity upon history, culture, and American heritage]

Nando Di Fino, “Bernie Goldberg Turns Tebow Discussion Into Soapbox On Religion….” December 14, 2011. Referenced at:  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-goldberg-turns-tebow-discussion-into-soapbox-on-religion-ridiculous-to-think-the-earth-is-6000-years-old%E2%80%99/

Reza Aslan, “Grand Ayatollah or Grand Old Party?,” Foreign Policy, February 29, 2012.  Referenced at:  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/29/grand_ayatollah_or_grand_old_party

Cantwell v. Connecticut, 60 U.S. 900 (1940)

South Carolina v. United States, 26 U.S. 110 (1905).  [quote found on pg. 111]

Jaffree v. Board of School Commissioners, 459 U.S. 1314 (1983).

Abington School District v. Schempp, 83 U.S. 1560 (1963)

Lynch v. Donnelly,  465 U.S. 668 (1984).

School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 225 (1963)

Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982).

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990).

Janet Napolitano, Department of Homeland Security Report, “Rightwing Extremism: Current

Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” April 7, 2009.   Referenced at:  http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1968). [Anyone wishing an in-depth look at the discussions attending the First Amendment's religious rights and the intent behind them should read Justice William Rehnquist's dissenting opinion]

Casey Luskin, “No, Ninth Circuit, the Relevant Law in C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District Was Indeed “Clearly Established,” Evolution News, Oct. 20, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/no_ninth_circuit_the_relevant_052081.html

“Atheist Michael Newdow: Attacks on Christianity,” Radio Broadcast of November 27, 2005.  Referenced at:  http://www.jonsquillministries.org/MEAntiC16.htm

Ben Witherington, ” Angry Apostles of Atheism Attack,” January 11, 2008.  Referenced at:  http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/01/angry-apostles-of-atheism-attack.html

blogsite:  http://www.animeonline.net/f4/why-do-some-atheist-hate-christians-religion-so-much-47859/

Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir.2002) – also listed as 328 F.3d 00-16423, 466 (9th cir. 2003).  [This lawsuit was originally filed in 2000 by Michael Newdow on behalf of his daughter. He said that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional establishment of religion. The district court held that the pledge was constitutional.  The decision was appealed and led to a 2002 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance are an endorsement of religion and therefore violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The mother of the child at issue, Michael Newdow's ex-wife, then filed suit to challenge the decision and the case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court, as Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004).

On June 14, 2004, the Supreme Court held Michael Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the suit on his daughter's behalf. The mother was previously given sole custody of the daughter. The Ninth Circuit's decision was thus reversed as a matter of procedural law].

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Abortion: Where Conscience Meets the Womb

by Diane Rufino

A baby is never a mistake, even if the mother’s conduct was.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about our country’s stand on abortion and what the issues are on both sides. As we all know, abortion is the voluntary, or calculated, intentional termination of an embryo or fetus.  I understand that reasonable people can debate when life actually begins and I understand that religion teaches that life begins at conception.  Yet I somehow feel there could be some room for common ground in the very early stages of a pregnancy.  But once there is a heartbeat, it would be impossible for me to imagine any reason why that living being should be terminated, absent an urgent dire threat to the mother’s life.  Yet as it stands now, abortions performed prior to the third trimester are legal in this country, thanks to the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.  [The decision essentially states that since a fetus is not a human being and therefore has no rights, including any that are protected under our Constitution, the woman's right to control her fertility and reproduction ability naturally outweigh any possible rights of the developing fetus for the first two trimesters.  With respect to the third trimester, the state may have an interest in protecting the life of the unborn and so it can regulate, but NOT when the woman's health - either physical or mental (including stress) - becomes an issue. So Roe also shows great tolerance for the abortion of a baby that is ready to be born].

Pro-life groups believe in the sanctity of all life.  They believe, as Ronald Reagan wrote so eloquently in 1983, that to diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn – diminishes the value of all human life. They believe that God is the giver of life.  They believe that the embryo or fetus is “alive” and thus abortion is tantamount to murder.  To them the question is not when human life begins, but rather ‘What is the value of human life?’  “The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law — the same right we have.”  (Ronald Reagan)

Since the decision in Roe v. Wade, which stands for the legal fiction that a fetus is not a human being, more than 20 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is well over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars. In 1982 the nation watched as a court in Indiana allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” because the child had Down’s Syndrome.  The death of the tiny infant Baby Doe tore at the hearts of Americans because the child was undeniably a human being – alive.  He was born mentally retarded and with an incomplete esophagus.  He laid helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The parents wanted to deny it a simple medical procedure to fix his esophagus so he could eat and they sued for the right to let him die. This time the issue before the court was not whether Baby Doe was a human being, but rather whether parents had the right to choose to terminate the life of their baby when it was handicapped or whether the state could step in and try to save its life. They sided with the parents.  If Baby Doe received such little compassion from the courts, how do those who haven’t had the opportunity to enter the world stand a chance?

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who in 1969 was a co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL), later renamed the National Abortion Rights Action League, helped make abortion legal. He provided statistics to the Supreme Court in Roe to help support that decision.  He was also the former director of New York’s City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, the largest abortion clinic in the world at the time.  In the late 1970′s he turned against abortion to become a prominent pro-life advocate, wrote Abortion America, and produced the powerfully revealing video, “The Silent Scream.”  He later admitted that the statistics he presented to the high court were intentionally misrepresented. As he wrote: “We fed the public a line of deceit, dishonesty, a fabrication of statistics and figures.  We succeeded because the time was right and the news media cooperated.  We sensationalized the effects of illegal abortions, and fabricated polls which indicated that 85 percent of the public favored unrestricted abortion, when we knew it was only 5 percent.  We unashamedly lied, and yet our statements were quoted by the media as though they had been written in law.”

Dr. Nathanson also wrote: “I believe  with all my heart that there is a divinity of existence  which commands us to declare a final and irreversible halt to this infinitely sad and shameful crime against humanity.”

Roe v. Wade and the continued devaluation of the unborn continues to prod the moral conscience of Americans.

Pro-lifers understand that they can’t fully appreciate all abortion decisions nor the wrenchingly difficult dilemmas presented by their particular situations – such as those made by an ill-informed 16-year-old who made an impulsive decision or was coerced, or a college student who has an education ahead of her, or an unwed mother who can’t afford to feed or take care of another child, or a woman who has had non-consensual sex, but they don’t believe the solution lies in a deliberate act of destruction of human life. They don’t believe an otherwise viable and living fetus should be killed because of inconvenience – or for any other reason, for that matter. There are options and resources.  There is education and common sense.  There is a lifestyle built on decent moral values, discipline, and priorities.

Pro-choice groups, on the other hand, believe that a woman should have access to whatever health care she needs and that she should have control over her own body.  Of course, as Ronald Reagan once commented: “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born.”  Finally, there is the issue of state intervention and to what degree the state should have a say in a pregnancy.

There are some women (pro-choice) who believe that they have a fundamental civil right to have complete control over her fertility and therefore she should have the freedom to decide whether she wants to continue or terminate her pregnancy.  Others simply want the right to an abortion to undue something they aren’t capable or ready to deal with.  Some have a change of heart and want to postpone having a baby until a future time.  As Frederica Mathewes-Green explained: “No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”  Yet we all know that abortion is often performed with less consideration than that.  It is often a woman’s choice of birth control…. birth control after the fact.  Sometimes many months after the fact.

Pro-choice for women means no-choice for men.

Career women overwhelmingly side with the pro-choice view.  Women who consider themselves pro-life have typically been stereotyped as church-going women and those who are stay-at-home wives and mothers. They are often portrayed as not really needing the option of an abortion. In 2008, my husband and I attended a rally at East Carolina University for John McCain.  Sarah Palin was the speaker.  Although most of us thought the event would be mobbed by Obama supporters in protest of Ms. Palin’s visit, there were no such mobs.  In fact, the only protesters we saw were those who stood across the street carrying plenty of signs calling for the right of women to have an abortion if she chooses. As we were walking on the campus to the event, we saw a woman walking out of one of the University buildings, wearing a nice tailored suit, and asked if we were walking in the right direction.  She made a snide comment about Sarah Palin and as we continued on our way, she shouted this to me: “You can’t be a successful woman if you don’t support abortion rights.”  Am I to believe that in order to be successful and respected in today’s world, the innocent unborn might need to be sacrificed?   Am I to believe that in order to be successful and respected, a woman must knowingly set aside the laws that God asks us to respect?  Is that what it means to be successful?  I don’t think so.

In fact, I have these few words to say to those career women who so lightly sacrifice the fruits of their womb for a chance to be a player in the business world:  Please don’t think there is a comparison between a good job and giving life. Jobs are fleeting and merely ‘positions’ that are temporarily held by one person or another. They either consume you for a business purpose or they consume you for some selfish egotistical gain. A child is a legacy; a permanent bond; a life-long friend….  A reason to live life to the fullest every single day of your life.  When I finished graduate school, when I was in my 20s and into my early 30s, I planned for a life of great accomplishment. I was going to be a great scientist. I was going to help understand the molecular basis of cancer and maybe find a cure. There was nothing inside me urging me to get married and start a family.  In fact, at that point in my life, I didn’t want children. And I was hoping I would find a man who would want the same.  But God knew better.  He knew more about my heart than I did.  And he blessed me with a child right after I got married.  I admit I was scared. I had no maternal instincts whatsoever (but was great with animals) and wasn’t sure I would know what to do.  But the minute I saw my daughter’s beautiful face and helpless body, I was hooked.  I knew that I was meant to be a mother. I instantly knew there was no greater meaning to life than having a child.  I knew I would love this child every minute of my life.  When I saw her fragile tiny, red, wrinkled body and the way she was so uncoordinated and didn’t know how to do the simplest of things, I knew I wanted to care for her and keep her safe and comforted for as long as I was able to do so. By the time I left the hospital, I had already circled the dates I would try to conceive my next child.  And only in having children of my own was I able to appreciate the depths of the unconditional and eternal love my own parents have for me.  And that is the true meaning of life.  It is the true circle of life.  And like a circle, the love between parents and children are never-ending, just as God’s love is for all of us.

To any woman unsure of her lot in life, I would offer  this heartfelt advice:  Don’t make the mistake of thinking a career or anything else of such material worth is more valuable than the life-long love you experience and the life lesson you learn from being a parent.  My biggest regret in life was not being able to start having children earlier, while I was younger, so that I could have had more of them before it was too late. While all of my friends were dating and getting married, I was still trying to figure out what degrees I wanted and so I got married much later.

The way I see it, the killing of an innocent viable fetus is utterly and fundamentally opposed to everything we stand for as a nation guided by Natural Law and memorialized under Christian values.  The right to life is the foundation of every other human right that we hold so dear in this country. We hold vigils, we protest, and we march for the rights of violent criminals.  We claim to be a compassionate society.  We claim it is too inhumane to put to death, albeit painlessly, those who violently took the life of other human beings. Yet we support the violent murder of the live unborn.  Our compassion stops at the womb.  Winifred Egan noted:  “What an irony that a society confronted with plastic bags filled with the remains of aborted babies should be more concerned about the problem of recycling the plastic.” American journalists David Kupelian and Mark Masters wrote: “Fetal tissue implants are not that much different from Nazi lamp shades made of Jewish skin.  Both are intend to put by-products of murder to good use.”

Pastor Richard Exley, also an author, has compared abortion laws to the Fugitive Slave laws, which were enacted to make sure that runaway slaves be returned to their masters. He wrote: “Current laws, making abortion on demand legal, bear a frightening affinity with the Fugitive Slave Act.  They too make ‘lawful’ what is unlawful – the taking of a human life – and forbid as ‘unlawful’ that which is right – the rescue of the unborn child.”

Glenn Beck had a sobering segment on his show once, when he talked about the federal protections for the Bald Eagle.  You can do jail time for killing an eagle’s egg, but you are protected for killing a human child in the mother’s womb.  In our country the Bald Eagle is federally protected.  And not just the living bald eagle but also the egg sitting in the nest. Anyone who tries to remove the egg or destroy it can be prosecuted by federal law.  The only plausible explanation for criminal prosecution is that the taking of the egg or destruction of it prevents a bald eagle from being born.  I have a question: How much more important is a child than an eagle?

We have an admirable history in this country of standing up for the inherent rights of human beings. We saw the injustice of enslaving Africans and treating them as property, and one of the reasons we fought a devastating Civil War was to correct that injustice. When we realized that women were treated as property and were degraded, we fought for their dignity and equality. Yet the most vulnerable of all in our society – our unborn children – are still being treated as property to be disposed of as we see fit.  I am baffled by the ambiguity…  we can’t commit to defining the unborn as a “human being” yet we call a woman “mother” or “Mom-to-be” upon the moment of conception and throughout her entire pregnancy we consider her to be “with child.”

I have a friend who ponders the reasons we mistreat others and the reasons for it.  He is right that it is easier to marginalize a person or group of people when we diminish their worth and demean their inherent value.  We already see how people dehumanize those persons that offend them or that stand in their way ideologically and politically. It is in this way they can mistreat them, strip them of their dignity, their worth, their property, and their lives.  We saw the Nazis do this to the Jews and the Japanese do this to the Chinese during World War II and the years leading up to it.  The U.S. did it to the Indians when the settled with West, the KKK did it to the blacks, and we do it today with the unborn under the guise of “woman’s choice.”

I remember an interview that Sean Hannity did with a young woman named Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor.  I remember listening to what this miraculous woman had to say, which she did so very gracefully and eloquently, and having my eyes swollen with tears.  Her message is the one people need to here.

On Sept. 15, 2008, Gianna addressed a crowd at Queen’s Hall, Parliament House, in Victoria, Australia.  She spoke on the eve of the debate that was to take place as to whether to de-criminalize abortion in Victoria and this is what she said:

“I’m adopted.  My biological mother was 17.  So was my father.  My biological mother was 7½ months pregnant when she decided to go to Planned Parenthood, which is the largest abortion provider in the world. They counseled her to have a late-term saline abortion which is a procedure where a saline (salt) solution is injected into the mother’s womb, where the baby ingests it. The baby is burned inside and out and the mother is then able to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.  But to everyone’s great shock and surprise, I didn’t arrive dead, but alive. I was born on April 6, 1977 in a Los Angeles County abortion clinic.  What’s fantastic about this, about the perfect timing of my arrival, is that the abortionist was not on duty yet.  So he wasn’t even given the opportunity to continue on with his plan for my life – which was death.  And I know that I am in a government building, and a beautiful one it is at that, and I love your country as well as my own, but I know that in the age we live in, it is not at all politically correct to say the name Jesus Christ in places like this. It’s not politically correct to bring him into these types of meetings because his name can make people so terribly uncomfortable. But I didn’t survive to make people comfortable.  I survived so I can stir things up a bit, and I have a great time doing just that.

So I was delivered alive, as I said, after 18 hours.  I should be blind, I should be burned, I should be dead. And yet I’m not.  Do you want to hear a fantastic vindication?   The abortion doctor had to sign my birth certificate.  So I know who he is.  And it also says in my birth records, for any skeptic listening, ‘Born during saline abortion.’  They didn’t win.  I’ve done some research on the man who performed the abortion on me and his clinics are the largest chain of clinics in the US; they gross over $70 million each year.  I read a quote from him several years ago: ‘I have aborted over a million babies. I consider it my passion.’  I tell you these things because we are involved in an interesting battle in the world. It is a battle between life and death… of good and evil.  What side are you on?

A nurse called an ambulance and had me transferred to a hospital, which is absolutely miraculous.  Generally, the practice at the time in my country, and up until 2002, was to end the life of an abortion survivor – by strangulation, suffocation, leaving the baby there to die, or throwing it away.  But on August 5, 2002, the extraordinary President Bush signed into law the ‘Born Alive Infants Protection Act’ to prevent that from occurring anymore.

I’m hoping to be hated by the time that I die so that I can feel God about me and understand what it was like to be hated.  I mean, Christ was hated…truly hated by those whose existence he threatened. Like me.  It’s not that I look forward to being hated and I already know that along my journey, I’m already hated. I’m hated because I declare life.  I declare: ‘You didn’t get me.  The Silent Holocaust didn’t win over me.’  And my mission, ladies and gentlemen, among many things, is this: to infuse humanity into a debate that ignores it… to infuse humanity into a debate that we have compartmentalized.  We have removed our emotions from the debate.  Do you really want that?  How much are you willing to take and how much are you willing to risk to speak the truth, in love and graciousness, and to stand up and at least be willing to be hated?  Or at the end of the day, is it all about you?

And so, after I was born, I was placed in an emergency foster care home where they decided they didn’t like me very much.  I don’t know how they could not adore me right from the start. What was wrong with those people?  But they didn’t like me. They couldn’t learn to love me.  You see, I’ve been hated since conception, by so many….  but loved by so many more, and especially by God.  I’m his girl.  You don’t mess around with God’s girl.  I have a sign on my forehead that says: ‘You better be nice to me because my Father runs the world.’

After I was placed in the mean home, I was taken out of the mean home and placed into a new home – a beautiful home… Penny’s home.  And Penny said that by this time, I was 17 months old, 32 pounds of dead weight, and diagnosed with what I consider the gift of cerebral palsy, which was caused directly by the lack of oxygen to my brain while I was trying to survive.  How I am compelled to say this: If abortion is merely about women’s rights, what were mine?  There were no radical feminists standing up and yelling about how my rights were being violated that day.  In fact, my life was being snuffed out in the name of women’s rights.  And, ladies and gentlemen, I would not have cerebral palsy had I not survived what I did, so when I hear the appalling, disgusting argument that we should have abortions because the child just might be disabled… Ugh…  The horror that fills my heart.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are things that you will only be able to learn from the weakest among us and when you snuff them out, you are the ones that lose.  The Lord looks after them, but you are the ones who will suffer forever from their loss.  And what arrogance… what absolute arrogance in the argument that has been made for so long in this human place that we live in that the stronger should dominate the weaker.  That they should determine who lives and who dies.  I can’t believe the arrogance in that.  Don’t you realize that you can’t even make your own heart beat?  Don’t you realize that all the power that you think you possess you really possess none of it.  It is only the mercy of God that sustains you -  even when you hate him.

So they looked at my dear Penny and they said: ‘Gianna will never be anything,’ which is always encouraging. But Penny decided to ignore them and she worked with me three times a day. To make a long story short, I was walking by 3½ with a walker and braces, and I stand up here today before you with a mild little limp and without a walker and without braces.  I fall gracefully sometimes and very ungracefully other times, but I consider it all for the glory of God.  You see ladies and gentlemen, I am weaker than most of you, but this is my sermon.  What a small price to pay to be able to blaze through the world as I do and offer hope.  And I think in our misunderstanding of how things work, we misunderstand how beautiful suffering can be.  I don’t suggest that you willing sign up for it, but when it comes, we forget that God is in control and He often has a way of making the most miserable thing beautiful.

I have met my biological mother.  I have forgiven my biological mother.  I am a Christian.  She is a very broken woman.  She came to an event that I was having two years ago.  She showed up unannounced and said: ‘Hello, I’m your mother.’  It was a very difficult day and yet, as I was sitting there, I kept thinking: ‘I don’t belong to you.  I belong to Christ.  He loves me.  I’m his girl and he treats me like a princess.’

So, ladies and gentlemen, you have an opportunity.  But for just one moment, I’d like to speak just to the men in this room:  Men, you are made for greatness.  You are made to stand up and be men.  You are made to defend women and children and not stand by and turn your head when you know murder is occurring and do nothing about it.  You are not made to use women and leave them alone.  You are made to be kind and great and gracious and strong, and to stand for something.  Men, listen to me… I’m too tired to keep doing your job.

Women, you are not made for abuse.  You are not made to deny your worth and your value.  You are made to be fought for.. forever.

So now is your moment….  What sort of people are you going to be?  I trust incredible.  I trust, men, that you will rise to the occasion.  To the politicians listening, particularly to the men, I would say this: You are made for greatness.  Set your politics aside.  You are made to defend what is right and good.  This fiery young girl will stand here and say:  ‘Now is your moment.  What sort of man do you want to be?  Are you going to be a man obsessed with his own glory or a man obsessed with the glory of God?  It’s time to take a stand, Victoria.  This is your hour.  God will assist you.  God will be with you.  You will have the opportunity to glorify and honor Him in 2008.’

I will just end with this.  Some of you might be slightly annoyed that I keep talking about God and Jesus.  But how on earth can I walk about, limping, through this world and not give all my heart and my mind and my soul and my spirit and my strength to the Christ who showed me mercy and gave me life.  So if you think I’m a fool, it’s just another jewel in my crown.  My whole intent in living here is simply to make God smile.

I hope some of this makes sense.  It just came from my heart.  May God bless and keep you.”

Wow.  Imagine living your life knowing you weren’t wanted, and even worse, that of all the options available, death was the most convenient.

Simply put, the abortion of a viable fetus is the thoughtful premeditated decision to take the life of another human being. Out on the streets we call it first-degree murder – a capital crime.

God created us and gave us the gift of life.  He gave us our free will and fundamental liberties yet set limits on them.  We know these limitations from reading the Bible.  We understand these limitations so that we can be a morally-upright, decent, stable, and compassionate people worthy of the dignity and humanity that God intended for us.  We also understand these limitations so that we, as a people, can be assured of making laws and creating a society that value life and goodness, while punishing and preventing evil.

In this country alone, we acknowledge that our fundamental rights and liberties derive from God and his benevolent nature. And only those fundamental rights are the ones protected by the Constitution. The right to take the life of a viable fetus would never be a right granted by our Creator.

Instead of conforming their behavior to God’s expectations, it is much easier to deny the role that God has played in our founding.  It is much easier to take the watchful eye of God out of society and all reminders of his laws. Instead of people looking to God’s law and conforming their behavior accordingly, they live their lives as a complete free-for-all and then seek to invalidate God’s law to absolve themselves of their immoral acts.

Mother Teresa once asked: “If we can accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?”

I may not know the precise moment when life happens, but it is indeed miraculous — that moment when the miracle of life occurs, like a switch being flipped, when life all of a sudden infuses a mass of cells. Unlike all other living things which man has been granted “dominion over,” only man shares that special bond with God for he is blessed with a deep and quick intelligence, foresight, a complex memory, advanced reason, and profound wisdom.  And so we know God loves us. This is why we are supposed to always respect and celebrate this bond we have with God.

So what happens when a woman is carrying a viable fetus and wants to abort that unborn child?  She presents quite a dilemma to God, doesn’t she.  On the one hand it is her body. Yet on the other hand, she was created to be able to bring children into the world.  And still on the other hand, there is the fetus, the growing child, who, although has been miraculously infused with life only asks for a few short months of shelter and support in the mother’s womb.  While God indeed loves all his children, we know from the Bible that He has a particular bond to those who are helpless. He wants us to do what he would do.

Mother Teresa once said: “There are two victims in every abortion: a dead baby and a dead conscience.”  She also commented: “It’s a shame that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”

One abortion provider provided this eye-witness account of working in an abortion clinic: “From May to November 1988, I worked for an abortionist. He specializes in third trimester killings. I witnessed evidence of the brutal, cold blooded murder of over 600 viable, healthy babies at seven, eight and nine months gestation. A very, very few of these babies, less than 2%, were handicapped…I thought I was pro-choice and I was glad to be working in an abortion clinic. I thought I was helping provide a noble service to women in crisis….I was instructed to falsify the age of the babies in medical records. I was required to lie to the mothers over the phone, as they scheduled their appointments, and to tell them that they were not ‘too far along’ Then I had to note, in the records that Dr. Tiller’s needle had successfully pierced the walls of the baby’s heart, injecting the poison what brought death…one day, Dr. Tiller came up the stairs from the basement, where the mothers were in labor. He was carrying a large cardboard box, and ducked into the employees only area of the office so that he wouldn’t have to walk through the waiting room. He passed behind my desk as I sat working on the computer, and he turned the corner to go around a short hall. He called out for me to come and help him. the box was so big and heavy in his arms that he couldn’t get the key into the lock. So I unlocked the door for him, and , pushing the door open, I saw very clearly the gleaming metal of the crematorium- a full sized crematorium, just like the ones used in funeral homes. I went back to my computer. I could hear Dr. Tiller firing up the gas oven. A few minutes later I could smell burning human flesh. Mine was the agony of a participant, however reluctant, in the act of prenatal infanticide.”

Another abortion provider gave this heart-wrenching account: “The doctors would remove the fetus while performing hysterotomies (removal of the uterus) and then lay it on the table., where it would squirm until it died.  We weren’t permitted to attend to them. They all had perfect forms and shapes. I couldn’t take it. No nurse could.”  Another wrote: “It is sobering to think that there is an actual human being at the end of the table willingly taking a baby apart.” Another eyewitness said: “The procedure changes significantly at 21 weeks because fetal tissues become much more cohesive and it becomes more difficult to dismember” And still another commented: “A long curved Mayo scissors may often be necessary to decapitate and dismember the fetus.”

If we as a nation continue to close our eyes and our hearts to the physical torture and purposeful death that these innocent souls endure for the sake of ‘convenience,’ then we have no humanity.  We truly have a dead conscience.

I was thinking about what this country stands for – Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  There is one thing for sure when it comes to our Founders – they meant what they wrote and they wrote what they meant.  Words mattered to them and the order of words mattered. The sentence structure dictated the exact meaning. “Life” is listed first.

What happened to our nation’s foundation?  What happened to the “innate rights of human beings,” defined by those seven words – “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” – that our Founders worked so hard to embrace and protect in our Constitutional and to engrain in our national fiber?  A living fetus living inside a woman’s uterus has no rights under our laws or Constitution yet pregnant women have the right to play God and terminate life, and homosexual men have the fundamental right to sodomy – a form of sexual pleasure against the laws of science because it cannot result in conception. California says there is a fundamental right to marry a same-sex partner, in contradiction to both the laws of nature and the Bible. According to Roe v. Wade, women have the fundamental right to an abortion on demand (up until the last trimester) yet according to Judge Roger Vinson, the district court judge for the Northern District of Florida in the case of the 20 states against Obamacare (Florida v. Sebelius, Oct. 14, 2010), there is no fundamental right in general for a person to determine his or her own medical treatment. Where is our collective conscience?  Where is our moral compass pointing these days?  Why is it so important that women have the right to terminate a life inside them without condition?

Just as we knew, in our hearts, that racial segregation was wrong, we also know that killing an unborn is wrong.  If our minds try to rationalize things differently, our hearts still tell us it is wrong and inhumane.

Our society is so uptight about religion in anyplace other than within the church walls or in the home where no one has to know about it. They cry “Wall of Separation” to demand that religion be removed from the sphere of government and absent from the thought process.  Religion and morality have no place in the legislative process or in the halls of justice, they cry.  Yet the “Wall of Separation” equally demands that government can’t support a position that denies God’s law.  Government may not endorse religion or promote religion over non-religion, yet every decision either has to fall on one side or another, doesn’t it.  Every decision is someone’s moral judgment or reflects someone’s view of religion/non-religion. Obama and Nancy Pelosi want Obamacare to cover abortions. They refused to include language preventing government funding for abortion.  Well, that’s a moral and religious stand.  Government is endorsing an absence of religion.  Government currently funds Planned Parenthood, the largest national supplier of abortions.  Again, that’s a position that has the government supporting non-religion.

We all sense that our country is on the verge of being overwhelmed by the many complicated issues, challenges, and crises it faces. We know that when men like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry and so many others guided us towards independence and founded this great country…  despite their personalities and their varying individual religious beliefs, they acknowledged that the success of their fragile endeavor rested firmly on the grace of God.  They invoked the blessings of Divine Providence in government and for over 100 years we prospered greatly.  And then we took God out of national life and then ignored him in making our laws.

We are going to need to ask God’s help and His divine providence if we are to pull through the crises – moral, political, and Constitutional – that we face.  But first we need to let Him know that his laws are still in our hearts and minds.  And the compassion and loyalty we seek from Him is the same we show to our fellow human beings.  As Pope John Paul II said: “America you are blessed . . . . The ultimate test of your greatness is the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenseless. If you want equal justice for all and true freedom and lasting peace, then America, defend life.”

In closing, I want to share something that touched me when I read it:

Elegy To The Unborn”  by Dr. James R. McLane

One starlit night

As I gazed into the heavens

I knew each star was created by God.

The ocean of stars above me

Spoke of the sea of humanity

Around me and I realized,

I too was created with purpose.

I was created to be born alive

To run and play, to laugh and cry

To work and to grow old.

But most of all

To show love amidst hatred

And to bring hope in despair.

Each one of us was created

With this purpose

And our mother’s womb

Became our passageway,

Our first universe.

From the moment of conception

The light of God breathed forth

An immortal soul,

A new human being of untold value.

As the beauty of the stars shone

I cried for my fellow man,

For millions of unborn babies

Had been crushed by humanity

And discarded as garbage.

Let us turn to the glory of Jesus

So all mothers and their unborn

Might be embraced by humanity

To bring glory unto God.

References & Further Reading:

See:  Ronald Reagan, “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation,” The Human Life Review, Spring 1983.  Reference at:  http://old.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

Eye-witness  accounts from people who are current and former abortion providers.  Referenced at:  http://www.abortionfacts.com/providers/quotes.asp

Gianna Jessen, Sept. 15, 2008 at Queen’s Hall, Victoria, Australia.  Referenced at:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5YlJ9CZ9fI&feature=related

Dr. James R. McLane, “Elegy to the Unborn.”  Referenced at:  http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/elegy-to-the-unborn.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Social Reformer’s Definition of Life (Roe v. Wade, revisited)

 

 

 

by Diane Rufino

Demeaning the ‘Sanctity of Life’ for an enhanced ‘Quality of Life’ 

“One day, I walked into an operating room, to just be an observant, which we would do generally, as a medical resident. It was the 1960′s and abortion was still legal. They were performing this hysterectomy, which was a caesarean section. And they lifted out a fetus that weighted approximately 2 pounds, and it was breathing and crying and struggling to breathe. And it was put in a bucket and set in the corner of the room, and everybody in the room just pretended that they didn’t hear it. Soon the crying stopped. And the baby died. And I walked out of that room a different person. That same day in the OB suite, an early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child’s life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die. There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I’ve never understood how killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is portrayed as a precious right.”   (Ron Paul, Liberty Defined, pg. 1 and the Natural Right Convention 2007)

On Monday, January 23, thousands of pro-life supporters marched on Washington DC in the freezing rain to show their lend their voice to those who have no voice of their own – the unborn.  In the struggle for rights and recognition, those most fragile and innocent among us look to those with a conscience and a heart to speak for them.  Doctors and lawyers have let them down.  Politicians have let them down. And in too many cases, their very mothers have let them down. But in the end, in the tribunal that mattered most (except in the kingdom of heaven, of course), the exalted Justices of the Supreme Court let them down. They minimized them, just as the others have. Next year, January 22, 2013, will mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, which held that abortion is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution under an implied right to privacy and thus established the notion of abortion-on-demand. The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court announced nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter, and leaving the unborn defenseless.

For almost 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have allowed themselves to play God with innocent human life. As Rand Paul puts it, “They have invented laws that have condemned 56 million babies to painful deaths without trial for the crime of being “inconvenient.” Yet President Obama, who is staunchly pro-abortion, proudly announces that “America doesn’t torture.”

The Roe v. Wade decision has been hailed as a great decision for the empowerment of women and the right of women to decide matters involving her body and fertility, yet while they celebrate the enhanced ‘quality of life’ for women, they demean the ‘sanctity of life.’  The truth of the matter is, the high court’s decision wasn’t so much about respecting “Life and Liberty” as it was about serving the social goals of the women’s rights movement and the increase in unwanted pregnancy and uncontrolled population growth.  Ron Paul has said: “As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.”

Currently, about 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester of pregnancy.  But abortions in the third trimester and even moments before delivery are currently legal as well.  Consider what would happen to that same woman if, one minute after birth, she should dispose of that newborn in a dumpster.  She would rightfully be charged with murder, right?  Note the inconsistency.

Conservatives believe that a fetus has a right to life because it is a person from the very moment of conception, or because it is a ‘potential’ person. Liberals deny that a fetus has a right to life because it is not a person. Moderates believe that although a fetus is not a living being from the moment of conception and therefore doesn’t immediately have a right to life, it does acquire that right at some point in its development (usually sometime in the second trimester).  The law, established by Roe v. Wade, says that even if the fetus acquires a right to life because it has become a “person,” such a right is trumped by a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body.

The term “abortion,” as offered in the Roe decision states: “the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman’s womb.”  Note that the very definition of ‘abortion’ verifies that life is destroyed.  And that brings us to the question: “What is Life?”  Lawmakers and judges struggle to define it, but perhaps it should not be in their domain, because as they try to define it, they often manipulate its definition and meaning and then proceed to devalue it.

Tim Radford wrote this in his article What is Life: “Living things do not die: they begin again, from a tiny cell, and scavenge the dust, the air and water, to find the elements necessary to fashion an aspidistra, an elephant, or an attorney-general, using only the raw materials at hand and energy from a thermonuclear reactor 93 million miles away (the sun). The freshly-minted, self-replicating organism then grows up, grows old and melts away, but not before imparting a fragment of itself to generate yet another copy, but not an identical copy. The process is visible and transparent, everywhere on the planet, but it is ultimately mysterious….   Life looks after itself.”

I think that is what Jesus teaches us – to respect life.  And to do so with love and compassion.

But as our government effectively uses the “wall of separation” concept to squash ‘religion’ in favor of ‘no religion,’ and powerful atheist elements of our country use the no-religion environment established by our government to push a liberal, free-for-all human existence, ‘quality-of-life’ supersedes the ‘sanctity of life.’  Our own president, Barack Obama, praised the Roe v. Wade decision as recognizing the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”  On this year’s anniversary of the decision, Obama chose these words:  “As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.  And I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”

While serving in the Illinois State Legislature and now as president of the United States, Obama has consistently taken a hard line on abortion rights.  As a legislator in Illinois, he voted four times AGAINST legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion, in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

As President, Obama has emphatically stated that America doesn’t torture. It won’t tolerate the torture or mistreatment of terrorists.  But the physical trauma that an unborn undergoes in order to be aborted and then killed is beyond anything that we can comprehend.

If the intentional killing of a baby born live isn’t the very definition of murder, and first-degree murder at that, I don’t know what else can be. And by a physician no less.  The Hippocratic Oath stands for the simple premise to “do no harm.”  The modern version of the Oath states: “Above all, I must not play God.”  As Doctor Paul (aka, Rep. Ron Paul) frequently explains:”I was taught that for each pregnancy I had two patients.”

‘Playing God’ occurs when one person believes he has the power or authority to decide who lives and who dies, often without the force of law, such as making a decision to take someone off life support or targeting someone for a thrill kill.

The abortion issue shows no signs of going away.  The controversy has become firmly engrained in our culture and is becoming sharper than ever as we continue to celebrate the enormous civil rights advances for all minority groups except those growing inside another’s womb.  Pro-life supporters hope that the Roe v. Wade decision will not survive to celebrate its 40th anniversary but those who understand that society cannot be burdened with more unwanted, unplanned babies see the decision as the green light to manage population growth.  Whether you hate or applaud the decision, the Supreme Court certainly put a lot of time and effort into coming up with the ruling, but not necessarily doing so by strictly interpreting of the US Constitution. To look carefully at how the Court came up with its decision is to understand the angle it took in sorting the issues.

The plaintiffs in the case included Texas residents Norma McCorvey, who used “Jane Roe” as an alias, and Dr. James Hallford, a licensed physician. In 1969, Norma was 21 years old, possessed a 10th-grade education, and was pregnant with her third child. She wanted an abortion but a Texas statute prohibited them except in instances to save the life of the mother.  She was too poor to get an illegal abortion in Texas or a legal one in California. Her friends advised her to assert, falsely, that she had been raped because then she could obtain a legal abortion. (There was such a provision in the Texas statute).  But the plan failed  because there was no police report documenting the alleged rape. She nonetheless attempted to obtain an illegal abortion, but found that the facility was shut down by police.  Dr. Hallford was a licensed physician whose practice was suffering because he could not perform legal abortions and who had two pending state abortion prosecutions pending against him. In March, 1970, McCorvey filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and “all other women similarly situated,” along with Dr. Hallford (and others).  By the time the case was finally heard, McCorvey had given birth and so the case was dismissed for lack of standing and the Texas abortion law was reaffirmed.

Although McCorvey had given birth (and put the child up for adoption), she nonetheless appealed her case to the Supreme Court. As we all know, the question before the Court was whether the Constitution embraces a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Now, before reading any further, dwell on that last sentence. What would your gut feeling tell you?   An abortion…  a violent act, a traumatic act to a living human being growing and developing inside its mother.  Would you think the Constitution embraces that right?

The Supreme Court held that it does.  In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that while there is no express right of a woman to have an abortion, the right falls within the right to privacy. The thing is, there is no express right of “privacy” in the Constitution.  But the Court had already gotten around that in 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut,  by reasoning that many of the rights expressly granted and protected by the Bill of Rights are grounded in a fundamental right to privacy. In Griswold, the Court was asked whether married couples have the right to use contraceptives, and in reaching the decision that it does, the Court reasoned that it must fall within the “penumbra” of privacy rights. “Penumbra” refers to those rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution.  (Activist judges will use it to refer to the ‘implied’ powers of the federal government or its laws).  The Supreme Court was able to hold that the right to privacy is an implied basic human right because privacy underlies many of the express fundamental rights in our Bill of Rights.

Appellants (challengers) Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, director of the PPL’s office in New Haven and also a professor of Medicine at Yale Medical School, were convicted for prescribing contraceptive devices and giving contraceptive advice to married persons in violation of a Connecticut statute which prohibited contraception. The statute read:  (i) “Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.  (ii) Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.”  Griswold and Buxton challenged the constitutionality of the statute on behalf of the married persons with whom they had a professional relationship.  The Supreme Court held that the right of married persons to use contraception is a matter of privacy. (Marital privacy). Writing for the Court, Justice Douglas stated that the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras “formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” and that the right to privacy exists within this area. The Supreme Court struck down the statute, holding that the Constitution created substantive rights, including privacy, which are so “fundamental to the principles of liberty” that they could not be restricted by government.

To be more specific, according to the Supreme Court, this right of privacy is grounded in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth amendments. (“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). Griswold was the first case that created a right relating to reproduction without naming a specific clause in the Constitution, because, of course, there is no such provision.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court held that a right to privacy under the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment  extends to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that right is not absolute. That right must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interests in: (1) regulating abortions; (2) protecting prenatal life; and (3) protecting the mother’s health.  According to the decision, a woman’s right to control matters involving her fertility and reproduction is strongest in the early months of pregnancy and the state’s interests become stronger as the pregnancy goes on.  The judges therefore used a balancing test and came up with a trimester approach to determine which party’s interests are most important at which time during the pregnancy.

The case was addressed methodically, first looking at the history of abortion, then the problems presented by abortion services not being regulated (‘back-alley abortions”), and finally the general and historical view of when life begins. According to the Supreme Court’s historical analysis, at common law, abortions were performed before “quickening” — the first recognizable movement of the fetus in-utero which appears usually between 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy. That was the time that a “person” was understood to come into being – to become sufficiently ‘formed” or recognizably human.  It was also the time at which the fetus was believed to be infused with a “soul” or “animated.”  At common law, abortion was not an indictable offense.  The so-called authorities on which this early definition was based, and on which the Supreme Court relied, included philosophers, theologists, and civil rights laws.  The Court also claimed that the definition coincides with the canons of the Christian church.  Where was the medical evidence?  “Although Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.”  [Roe, pg. 134]

By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, only eight American states had statutes dealing with abortion. It was not until after the Civil War that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening, but were lenient with it before quickening. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother’s life, that provision soon disappeared, and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose. Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950′s, a large majority of the states banned abortion in general, except and unless it was necessary to save or preserve the life of the mother. In 1967, Colorado became the first state to legalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington. A law in Washington, DC, which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that “health” meant “psychological and physical well-being,” essentially allowing abortion in Washington, DC.  By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where a woman’s physical health was endangered.

Therefore, the Court claimed, at common law and at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than it was after the Civil War and then in the 20th century.  The Court never once entertained the possibility that the medical field understands fetal development better or that medical advances care for pregnancies better now than in earlier times, therefore preserving the health of the mother and not necessitating abortions for those pregnancies that pose a potential risk to her. Furthermore, in the Court’s opinion, “risk of harm” to the mother which would necessarily justify an abortion (in almost all cases) would include stress and emotional and psychological harm. “Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved.”  All these are factors that might justify a decision to terminate a pregnancy, according to the Court. [Roe, pg. 153]

Along this line of thinking, then, couldn’t a child who is born, or even a difficult relative, also interfere with this definition of “liberty”?  Does a person have the right to kill an aged parent because of “the stress” and “taxing” of elder care and the problem of trying to provide care when he/she is unable, mentally, psychologically, and physically able to do so?   Does a parent have the right, under this thinking, to kill his/her child who might be born with a disability that makes care so burdensome and stressful as to cause psychological harm?

The Court then went into a discussion of the need to make sure that women get reputable medical care when they go for abortions. They didn’t want them to have to seek back-alley abortions or have to travel from a state where abortion was illegal to a state where it was legal.  And finally, they looked to the Constitution to see if there is even a fundamental right to an abortion such that a woman cannot be denied the ability and opportunity to have one.  That is when they made their famous pronouncement that such a right indeed exists, within another right that is not expressly protected on its own – privacy.  As Justice Blackmun announced in the majority opinion of the Court: “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

The Court, however, never looked far enough into the Bill of Rights or in any penumbra of rights to find protection for the unborn. It never showed the degree of concern for them that it showed for women’s rights.  Not even close.

A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) was the question of when human life begins.  Does it begin at conception, birth, or at some point in between?  The Court declined to resolve that issue, noting that: “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.”  Instead, the Court chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, “the unborn have never been recognized as persons in the whole sense” and therefore, they are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment.  (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizen of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”)  So rather than assert that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a “compelling interest” in protecting “potential life” at the point of viability (which in reality has amounted to ‘little interest’).

In other words, because an unborn child doesn’t fit within the definition of the 14th Amendment, it is not entitled to any rights afforded under the US Constitution.  The Supreme Court reached a very similar decision in the Dred Scott case when it decided that blacks could never qualify as ‘citizens’ of this country and therefore have no rights recognized under the US Constitution.

But the High Court made a key admission, which it conveniently swept under the carpet in reaching its ultimate decision: “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case (Norma McCorvey; aka, Roe, who sought an abortion), of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.”  ["... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."]

Sadly, the Court redefined “life” to mean only babies who have been born. As Justice Blackmun wrote: We are persuaded “that the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.”

In assessing the interests at stake when a woman doesn’t want the baby growing inside her, the decision reads:

“The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal “abortion mills” strengthens, rather than weakens, the State’s interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman’s own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy. The third reason is the State’s interest — some phrase it in terms of duty — in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.   It is with these interests that this case was concerned. [pp. 151-152]

But the privacy right involved cannot be said to be absolute. A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of a person to do whatever he or she wishes with his or her body.

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this “compelling” point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.   [pp. 163-165]

And so that’s how  the Court came up with its famous balancing test:

1.  In the first trimester, the state (that is, government) can treat abortion only as a medical decision, leaving medical judgment to the woman’s physician.

2.  In the second trimester (before viability), the woman has the right to have an abortion and the state can assert a legitimate interest to protect the health of the mother (ie, to regulate abortion procedure so that it related to the woman’s health).

3.  After viability (the third semester), the potential of human life can be considered as a legitimate state interest, and the state can choose to “regulate, or even proscribe abortion” as long as the life and health of the mother is protected.

“A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment….     This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.  [Roe, pg. 166]

Roe is clearly quite a stretch under the “Due Process” clause of the 14th Amendment.  In fact, I firmly believe it was incorrectly decided under that amendment. The Court stated many years ago that the Due Process Clause protects those liberties that are “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”  [See Snyder v. Massachusetts (1934), pg. 105]  The reference point was the time period in which the amendment was drafted and enacted, which was 1868. (Valid ratification is still not certain since the southern states were coerced into ratifying the amendment after their defeat in the Civil War).  Liberties “rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people” refers to those which were fundamental in the establishment of our country.  I don’t argue that the rights of privacy are not fundamental.  They are.  Our notions of individual liberty are certainly not so restricted as to exclude the right of marital privacy.  But there can be no understanding or argument that the right to an abortion is one that is “so rooted in our traditions and culture” as envisioned by the drafters of the 14th amendment. There is no understanding that a privacy right can extend to situations that directly involve the brutal denial of rights of another. Alexis de Tocqueville, who compared the embrace of liberty in America to that in Europe in his book Democracy in America, said: “It was never assumed in the United States that the citizen of a free country has a right to do whatever he pleases; On the contrary, more social obligations were there imposed upon him than anywhere else.” [Vol. 1, Chapter V]  Abortion is a woman’s rights movement issue, an empowerment tool, designed to give women greater control over her body and a “get out of jail” free card over certain responsibilities for the purpose of allowing her greater freedom over her time and energies.

Never once does the Court discuss the “Equal Protection” rights of the unborn to the rights and privileges afforded other human beings. The Court acknowledges that there comes a point in the development of the fetus when it becomes a viable human being.  Yet it seems to deny that it is a “citizen” and therefore not entitled to any protections under the US Constitution.  This is similar to what the Supreme Court held for Dred Scott (1857), the slave who sued for freedom when he was moved to a “free” state.  In that decision, the Court held that those of African descent could never be “citizens” and therefore are not entitled to any protectable rights under the Constitution. The Supreme Court seems to have a habit of defining which human beings have rights and liberties.  Our laws need to be enforced with equal justice, not social justice.

Carolyn Gargaro in her article “Roe v. Wade: The Unconstitutional Decision,” wrote:  ”Recall the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, which declared that slavery could not be prohibited by Congress in any territory of the U.S. and that African Americans were not full persons and not afforded the same rights as “full persons.” Sound familiar? President Lincoln argued that the slaves were persons, not possessions, and that their unalienable right to liberty was protected by the Declaration of Independence unborn. To add to the irony, after the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, came the Thirteenth (1865) and Fourteenth (1868) Amendments, all which overthrew slavery and the erroneous Dred Scott Supreme Court decision.”  How ironic it is that clause 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was drafted specifically to overturn the law established by the Dred Scott case and to provide citizenship for a class of persons who were ignored, is the very clause used by the same Court to deny citizenship to another class of persons. The Fourteenth Amendment was supposed to protect people from the arbitrary denial of rights.

Justice William Rehnquist also did not believe that abortion was a right reasonably protected under the 14th Amendment.  In his dissenting opinion, he emphasized that the decision by the majority to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one amounts to judicial activism rather than a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment. He wrote:

“The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental,” [Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934); discussing the criteria for those rights that should be covered under the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause]. Even today, when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857, and “has remained substantially unchanged to the present time.”

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”  [Roe, pp. 176-177]

Justice White dissented as well and wrote: “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.”  [Roe, pg. 179]  

Why the regulation of abortion should become a federal constitutional issue is a sign of how far our nation has strayed from the initial clear language of our Constitution. Nearly all governmental authority over matters touching on the lives of citizens was left to state governments, to reflect the interests of its citizens. James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.”   The Bill of Rights, which lists those rights possessed by Americans that the government shall not take away, or burden without an absolute necessity, includes the Ninth Amendment, which proclaims that the prior amendments are not meant to diminish the importance of other rights retained by the people, and the Tenth Amendment, which makes the residual powers of the state governments even clearer.

Many claim that the right to an abortion potentially falls within the purview of the Ninth Amendment, which reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  But an essential concept in this country, and the reason we are a nation of laws, is that no person is entitled to exercise their rights when they infringe upon the rights of another.  It has long been the dominion of the states – and not the federal government – to enact laws which define self-defense, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, rape, and murder.

Our Bill of Rights were cautiously drafted and adopted for a reason.  And that reason was the apprehension of the States for a federal government by the very nature of man and power would tend to try to concentrate more power in itself and assume powers away from them.  As Machiavelli wrote: “Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results.”  Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist argued that a Bill of Rights was not necessary and in Federalist No. 84, he posed: Why do we need a Bill of Rights to “declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?  Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?”

He went into further detail: “It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was the MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain everything they have no need of particular reservations. “WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  [Federalist No. 84]

The Federalists were concerned that any constitutional enumeration of liberties might imply that other rights, not enumerated by the Constitution, would be surrendered to the government.  Nationalist (turned Federalist) James Madison argued that any attempt to enumerate fundamental liberties would be incomplete and might imperil other freedoms not listed. In 1789, he introduced 19 draft amendments (to become the Bill of Rights) to the House of Representatives and for one in particular, he offered this comment: “It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution: “The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”  This draft amendment submitted by Madison would be the precursor of the Ninth Amendment.  It was specifically proffered to quiet fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected.

A similar sentiment was expressed in the anti-Federalist essay, Federal Farmer No. 16 (widely acknowledged was written by Founder Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia): “The supreme power is undoubtedly in the People, and it is a principle well established in my mind, that they reserve all powers not expressly delegated by them to those who govern; this is as true in forming a state as in forming a federal government. There is no possible distinction but this founded merely in the different modes of proceeding which take place in some cases. In forming a state constitution, under which to manage not only the great but the little concerns of a community: the powers to be possessed by the government are often too numerous to be enumerated; the people to adopt the shortest way often give general powers, indeed all powers, to the government, in some general words, and then, by a particular enumeration, take back, or rather say they however reserve certain rights as sacred, and which no laws shall be made to violate….  When we particularly enumerate the powers given, we ought either carefully to enumerate the rights reserved, or be totally silent about them; we must either particularly enumerate both, or else suppose the particular enumeration of the powers given adequately draws the line between them and the rights reserved, particularly to enumerate the former and not the latter, I think most advisable: however, as men appear generally to have their doubts about these silent reservations, we might advantageously enumerate the powers given.”

In his address to the House to introduce the final draft of the Bill of Rights, Madison said: “It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights….that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.”

Many believe that abortion is not an area that is reserved to the federal government to regulate. While a State has the inherent police powers to regulate for the health, safety, welfare, and morality of its people, the federal government has no such police powers.  The States have this power to regulate behavior and enforce order within their borders because of the reservation of powers under the Tenth Amendment.  The federal government, on the other hand, is a creation of the States and has limited powers and therefore no police power is assumed by it. The federal government was created by the federal compact formed by the States in drafting and ratifying the US Constitution.  The federal government can only regulate and burden individual rights when: (i) there is a compelling governmental interest; (ii) when the law or policy is narrowly-tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and (iii) the law or policy applies the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

The balance of power between the States and the federal government, as embraced by the US Constitution, was an issue that concerned the States deeply.  Patrick Henry was so distrustful of the Constitution that he urged Virginia to secede from the Union and not ratify it.  He  believed it was poised for abuse by the federal government, would ultimately result in tyranny, and would undue all that was fought for in the Revolutionary War. He believed the lynchpin of the American system was the recognition and protection of strong, sovereign, independent States which would keep checks on a federal government that was infused with certain limited delegated powers. This was our concept of federalism, or Dual Sovereignty.

Federalism is the constitutional division of powers between the federal and state governments.  It is widely regarded as one of America’s most valuable contributions to political science and the most important ‘check’ in our system of checks and balances on the power of our centralized government.

Again, James Madison, “the father of the Constitution,” explained the separation in terms we can all understand: “The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce…. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” [Federalist No. 45]  In a letter that Jefferson wrote, he emphasized that states are not “subordinate” to the national government, but rather the two are “coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole….  The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government.”

In Federalist No. 39, an extremely important essay which discussed the nature of the government, Madison wrote:  “[The nature of the government] in relation to the extent of its powers is federal. The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects. The most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, to  prevent an appeal to the sword and a dissolution of the compact.”

Since governments tend to overstep the bounds of their authority, the Founders knew it would be difficult to maintain a balanced federalism. In fact, that was one of the central issues raised by the state ratifying conventions as they met to decide whether to approve the new Constitution. Responding to this concern, in Federalist No. 31, Alexander Hamilton expressed his hope that “the people will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the state governments.” As he wrote: “This balance between the national and state governments forms a double security to the people. If one government encroaches on their rights, they will find a powerful protection in the other. Indeed, they will both be prevented from overpassing their constitutional limits by the certain rivalship which will ever subsist between them.”

He went on to say, in Federalist No. 31: “The moment we launch into conjectures about the usurpations of the federal government, we get into an unfathomable abyss, and fairly put ourselves out of the reach of all reasoning. Imagination may range at pleasure till it gets bewildered amidst the labyrinths of an enchanted castle, and knows not on which side to turn to extricate itself from the perplexities into which it has so rashly adventured. Whatever may be the limits or modifications of the powers of the Union, it is easy to imagine an endless train of possible dangers; and by indulging an excess of jealousy and timidity, we may bring ourselves to a state of absolute skepticism and irresolution. I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place, that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty……  As in republics, strength is always on the side of the People, and as there are weighty reasons to induce a belief that the State governments will commonly possess most influence over the Union (ie, the federal government)….  The safest course is to confine our attention wholly to the nature and extent of the powers as they are delineated in the Constitution. Everything beyond this must be left to the prudence and firmness of the People; who, as they will hold the scales in their own hands, it is to be hoped, will always take care to preserve the constitutional equilibrium between the general and the State governments.”

And so, in the end, the States spoke out clearly and strongly in their ratification conventions.  They would not give up sovereignty.  They would not adopt a Constitution without a Bill of Rights.  They didn’t trust that a federal government would be able to police itself and not attempt to abuse and enlarge its powers and tread on the rights reserved to the States and to the people. The federal government was never intended to regulate abortion nor define life.  The statements made by Madison make abundantly clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people and the powers it reserves to the States.

Not only did the Supreme Court err by removing the regulation of abortion by the States, it did something far worse.  It used its lofty judicial powers not for strict interpretation of the US Constitution, but rather to fashion a remedy for a pressing social issue – the increasing rate of unwanted pregnancies by those who can’t properly provide for them.

The Burger Court in Roe decided that the Constitution must evolve, and it must be flexible enough to consider current public opinion when deciding whether a right was sufficiently “fundamental” to deserve constitutional protection.

In an interview with the NY Times Magazine in 2009, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the following statement: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”  So, instead of Roe being about a woman’s right to choose, Justice Ginsburg actually thought it was more about getting rid of unborn babies of an “undesirable” portion of our population, because after that, Medicare funding became available for abortions (which she saw as affecting predominantly one segment of the population). She came to question that perception when the Court decided Harris v. McCrae eight (8) years later in 1980, upholding the Hyde Amendment, which was passed in 1976 by Republicans and which forbids the use of public funding for abortion.  But the Amendment has rarely been used or state funding has taken its place, since the ACLU and other groups have argued that the Amendment targets blacks and other low-income minorities and denies them abortion services (ie, since abortion services are provided/used mainly by low-income minorities, denying them unfairly targets minorities!) [See Emily Bazelon, "The Role of Women on the Court"].  So, social engineering appears to be what the abortion issue was and is all about.

But it is also an issue strongly associated with Women’s Rights.

In 2005, Ginsburg, a lifelong proponent of Women’s Rights, addressed NY University’s law school and said that if she were on the Court at the time, she would have secured the right of a woman to have an abortion even more firmly through the Equal Protection Clause.  She said she would have argued that women cannot participate in society equally with men without the ability to control their reproductive lives.  Perhaps Ginsburg had a mind melt with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.  In Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), Justice O’Connor wrote: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”  That case went on to remove any obstacles in the way of a woman getting an abortion, such as consent by her husband.

This case is a perfect example of judicial activism.  This is what judicial activism sounds like and smells like.

We all know that Planned Parenthood is prominent in providing abortion services. It receives about $1 million each day in taxpayer funds.  And we know that our pro-abortion President and Democrat leaders refused to cut funding to Planned Parenthood last year. When House Speaker John Boehner asked President Obama how much he was willing to cut from the organization, he said “None, zip, zero, nada.”  Vice President Joe Biden even told Boehner the Obama administration was prepared to take the battle to voters and allow a shutdown of the federal government over Planned Parenthood funding.  This year, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, a breast cancer charity, made a decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. A few days later, however, it reversed that decision, after intense pressure from pro-abortion groups. As one commentator put it: “We have witnessed an absolute shakedown of an organization that simply wants to save the lives of women through cancer research.”

But what most people don’t know is that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1916 for the purpose of “stopping the multiplication of the unfit.”  Eugenics.  She boasted that the services provided would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” But it even more sinister than that.  Sanger united with eugenics financier and businessman, Clarence Gamble, to find several personable black ministers who could help them promote and sell their services as ‘community health and welfare services.’  As Michelle Malkin described in her recent article on the Planned Parenthood founder: “Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would.  Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign ‘The Negro Project.’ “

The social problems caused by uncontrolled pregnancy was one that the Supreme Court no doubt entertained in Roe v. Wade.  In fact, it was later learned that the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, really never intended to push her case any further once her pregnancy progressed and she gave birth. She was pressured by pro-abortion groups to appeal her case to the Supreme Court.  If the Court could somehow find that a woman has an inherent right to terminate her pregnancy, then populations could more easily be controlled.  Women wouldn’t be “saddled” with babies they didn’t want or never planned for. Cities wouldn’t be overly burdened with children that its institutions would have to help raise and care for.  Society would be spared exceeding numbers of “useless idiots.”

John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar, is an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations. For those old enough to remember or those who read their history, only a few years into his presidency of the Third Reich, Hitler instituted a similar policy of forced sterilization.  Any citizen who was deemed “unfit” (insane, infirm, disabled, malformed) or didn’t possess characteristics suitable enough for the “master race” were either institutionalized and sterilized or received a letter informing them that they had to report and be sterilized. Holdren is a self-professed protege of eugenicist Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist. Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.”  [Michelle Malkin, "To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit']

To some, the abortion ruling in Roe is the most significant decision in modern history. To those who learned about such horrors as what happened under Dr. Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, where hundreds of late-term, healthy, living, breathing viable babies were  aborted live and then systematically killed (including with scissors), they ask themselves “What have we done?” And to others, the fight is not over to give the unborn the rights they deserve. They continue to respect the sanctity of life.  Social problems must be addressed by the legislature and not by the Courts, because in doing so, legal analysis will often be skewed to the result that solves the problem. And the funny thing about jurisprudence is that courts hardly ever re-invent the wheel. They just continue to re-cycle and re-cite prior decisions.

The growing opposition to abortion-on-demand has led to a number of proposals, including some which are my own, which I’ve attempted to summarize below:

1).  Amend the US Constitution (much in the same way that the 14th Amendment did to over-turn the Dred Scott decision).  Senator Rand Paul suggests a Human Life Amendment to the US Constitution.  His father has already introduced such a constitutional amendment.

2).  Congress should define life.  The “Life at Conception Act,” which was introduced in January 2011 by Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss) and which was co -sponsored by Senator Rand Paul, would define all fetuses to be persons with a right to life guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.  It would effectively negate Roe v. Wade.  Such a law would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments.  In 2005 and 2007, Rep. Ron Paul introduced the “Sanctity of Life Act,” which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction.

But life doesn’t necessarily have to be defined as beginning at conception.  To many, a fertilized egg is hardly a person. To recognize that leaves a narrow window of opportunity available for the morning after pill or something similar. To emphatically state that a fertilized egg is a person ultimately gives the government the right to place the woman’s body under the control of the government.  Reasonable minds can come up with a solution that doesn’t involve the highest Court getting in the business of legislating abortion from the bench.  This approach is infinitely more compatible with the 14th Amendment and with the US Constitution in general.

A constitutional amendment on the definition of life would provide better protection than an act of Congress because the amendment would be supreme law.

3).  State nullification of the Roe v. Wade decision.  States can pass a nullification bill which, in effect, says that the Roe decision exceeds the authority of the Supreme Court to strictly interpret the US Constitution and is therefore null and void and not to be enforced in the State.  The bill would have to state something like this:

“The government formed by the Constitution of the united States was not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of powers delegated to itself.  Likewise, the authority of the Supreme Court extends only to the strict interpretation of the Constitution and not to any arbitrary decisions designed for social purposes. The States, the parties to the federal compact (which brought the government into existence for limited responsibilities), have the right under that compact to judge for themselves the extent of powers so delegated and the interpretation of the Constitution that they themselves created and ratified. We, the People of ______ (state), will not submit to the application of force or judicial decision to undermine rights and powers reserved in the Ninth and Tenth amendments and to reduce this State to obedience to the federal government.

The State of ______, having the right, and being duty-bound, to interpose to address any usurpation of power and rights delegated in the US Constitution and for the protection of the liberties of its citizens, declare that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade invades upon the State’s powers and is therefore null and void. The People of this State will henceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to be bound by that decision.

No state or federal court shall adjudicate a case that relies on the Roe v. Wade decision.

No federal agency or agent shall attempt to interfere with the force of this bill. They will have no authority to do so within the borders of this State.”

4).  Leave it to the States to define life as they wish.  Let states determine the point of fetal viability. Congress would have to legislatively limit the jurisdiction on the federal courts such that they would be prohibited from hearing any case or relying on any judicial precedent when it comes to the matter of how life is defined.

5).  Leave the issue of abortion to the States.  Pressure Congress to pass HR 300, sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul, which reads: “Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.”

HR 300 would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.  So if North Carolina or Texas or any state passes a law against abortion, no one can challenge that law in federal court. As Ron Paul explains: “This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”

This bill was originally introduced in 2005 as the “We the People Act.”

6).  Define abortion as an act of violence against an unborn. As Ron Paul explained: “I see abortion as a violent act.  All other violent acts are handled by the States – murder, rape, armed robbery..  Take away the jurisdiction of the government by a majority vote of the House.”

7).  Abortion should be allowed in the first few weeks (before a heartbeat) and then after that, there should be consequences, including having the child and putting it up for adoption.  If the church is pushing for the right to life, then one solution is to have the church be in charge of adopting and raising the children. That might sound as if I’m pushing the burden on the Catholic Church, but wouldn’t that be one way to help push back against the decay that has resulted in allowing women raise children who aren’t equipped to do so or were motivated solely for a government check and a way to raise children with good solid morals? Besides, adoption is always a decision one can live with.  Plus, sometime down the road, the woman might have a change of heart and try to be part of that child’s life in some way.

8).  Schools should push abstinence.  Schools should promote morality and that means to bring religion back into the public schools. The fact is that humans, like almost all other species, must reproduce to propagate the species.  Sex is how we, biologically, reproduce.  Since we have become such an amoral, sex-driven, gratification-based culture, women have forgotten the duty, and burden, they bear by being the partner that develops and brings forth life.  Young women need to be reminded of the significance of sex for the role it plays in biology and in evolution and schools and other authority should be highly critical of decisions to engage in a sexual relationships.   Only with a strong background in biology and religion (and an overhaul of the welfare program which rewards teen pregnancy and the creates the mentality where mothers encourage their daughters to get pregnancy for security) teach dependency as a way of life) can we expect to fight the abortion problem.  Because religious reverence and reflection has been removed from anywhere a child may go, except Church and perhaps home, momentary physical pleasure is the new social norm.

9).  If it is a social problem that the Court intended to use the decision to address, why not simply address that social problem legislatively.  It may not be as “politically correct,” as legislators would like, but it’s far better addressed by statute, which can be better responsive to changing social conditions, than by twisting constitutional law.

As explained earlier, the abortion issue isn’t about the sanctity of life as much as it is about the impact on society of having so many unwanted babies born into a society with limited financial resources (half of Americans paying income taxes) and with such severe social decay.  Children who are unwanted don’t stand a chance of growing up to be the kind of upstanding, intelligent, respectful, well-adjusted adults to contribute meaningfully in our country.  The abortion problem is a problem of morality and a turn from religious instruction, both of which our government is completely complicit in.  Thanks to government policies and the legal fiction known as “Wall of Separation,” American culture has adopted the idea that momentary pleasure is better than lasting pleasure and physical pleasure is better than spiritual pleasure. Our culture has clearly rejected the historic notion that sexuality is meant to be enjoyed within the confines of a stable, committed marital relationship. Sexual immorality and promiscuity is glorified. Our children are inundated with it from TV shows, movies, and music videos. The government claims it is not its role to get involved with morality, but every decision by government reflects someone’s moral judgment.  What they mean to say is that they just don’t want any decisions made that remotely have anything to do with religion.  And we all know that religion provides the principles, restraint, and posturing that define morality.  I say to government:  “If you don’t believe you should promote morality, then get out of the public education business!”  Leave it to the States who are legitimately charged with regulating for the general health, safety, morality, and welfare of its citizens.

The case of Roe v. Wade overruled the 100-year-old Texas abortion law which banned abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother.  Even further, it engrained something terrible and evil in our collective national conscience…  abortion-on-demand..  the mindset that abortion is completely acceptable in almost all cases, in all stages of pregnancy, and for almost all reasons. It engrained something unconscionable in the minds of women who put convenience, career, and equal competition in society with men above all else — that a baby conceived by the Holy Spirit to be loved, wanted, and cared for, is expendable.

The silent screams have increased to levels we can’t even imagine…  They are the silent screams that no one hears except God.

References:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).  Referenced at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

Tim Radford, “What is Life?,” The Guardian/The Observer, April 26, 2008.  Referenced at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/27/genetics.evolution

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84.  Referenced at:  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm    [Hamilton addresses  general objections to the Constitution]

James Madison, Speech Introducing the Bill of Rights (to House of Representatives), June 8, 1789.

Federal Farmer No. 16.  [Making the case for a Bill of Rights].  Referenced at:  http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s32.html

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).  Referenced at:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).  Referenced at:  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html

Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934).  Referenced at:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=291&invol=97

Michelle Malkin, “To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit,” Feb. 10, 2012.  Referenced at: http://michellemalkin.com/category/health-care/

Carolyn Gargaro, “Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision,” Rightgrrl, Feb. 3, 2000.  Referenced at:  http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/roe.html

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 31.  Referenced at:  http://constitution.org/fed/federa31.htm   [The general power of taxation, cont'd from No. 30]

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28.  Referenced at:  http://constitution.org/fed/federa28.htm    [Limitations on legislative power with respect to Providing for the Common Defense]

James Madison, Federalist No. 39.  Referenced at:  http://constitution.org/fed/federa39.htm    [The absolute need to have the government conform to Republican principles; Addresses the question of whether the government is 'federal' or 'national']

James Madison, Federalist No. 51.  Referenced at:  http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm    [The importance of proper checks and balances]

Andrew M. Allison, “Federalism and the 10th Amendment,” The National Center for Constitutional Studies, March 1995.  Referenced at: http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/mar95nl.html

Letter to Major John Cartwright, 5 June 1824; in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson , ed. Albert Ellery Bergh, 20 vols. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1907), Vol.16.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1831.

Steven Ertelt, “Obama Refused Boehner’s Demand to Cut Planned Parenthood Spending”, Life News, April 11, 2011.  Referenced at:  http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/11/obama-refused-boehner-demand-to-cut-planned-parenthood-funding/

Fred Lucas, “Obama Defends Roe v. Wade As Way for ‘Our Daughters’ to Have Same Chance As Sons to ‘Fulfill Their Dreams’,” January 23, 2012.  Referenced at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-defends-roe-v-wade-way-our-daughters-have-same-chance-sons-fulfill-their-dreams

Ron Paul, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Define Our Freedom, Grand Central Publishing, 2011.

Ron Paul, National Right to Life Convention, Kansas City, Missouri, June 15, 2007

Emily Bazelon, “The Role of Women on the Court,” NY Times, July 9, 2009.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment