Roe Vs. Wade Anniversary Barely Makes News
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 10:00AM 
Yesterday marked the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision for Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. Approximately 50 million babies have been aborted since 1973.
Thousands marched in Washington, DC. No arrests. Imagine that. The March for Life rally barely made a blip on the MSM radar screen.
Republican candidate for president Ron Paul, also an obstetrician who has delivered 4,000 babies, said at the March for Life:
"The debate over when life begins should not be a debate. Let me assure you: All life begins at conception.”
Ron Paul also said at a Republican Debate in 2007 that he had never seen a case in which abortion was necessary. Ever.
Since Roe vs. Wade became law, child abuse , STDs, domestic abuse, pornography and various forms of cancer have all increased. There is a connection. Starting with the sexual revolution and so-called “free sex” came the domino affect of increased abortions, venereal diseases, sexualization of women which is leading America down a path from which it will be hard to recover.
Don’t forget to stand for the unborn this election cycle. This evil has pervaded our society long enough.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1504885
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (35)
Ouch!! How can we, it's voting season... Hate to turn a voter off!!!
If this were an ILLEGAL immigration or anti-war rally you can place a wager that there'd be some arrests.
Love him or hate him, Ron Paul speaks the truth.
Ron Paul speaks the truth "as he knows it". He's right on abortion and several other issues but is completely out to lunch on Iraq. He doesn't understand it, he's wrong about the facts, and he's especially wrong about the implications.
50 million baby's means 50 million abortion seeking women are murderers, and 50 million women should go to jail, and/or be executed for contracting to abort their babies. Right?
In 1970, [ACLU] attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on
behalfof Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe").McCorvey had later said that these two ACLU opportunists forced her to claim she was raped by threatening her with jail on some infraction (Possibly due to taking it to the high court, which meant that her statements in the lower court would be criminally expedient – according to history, she attempted suicide as a way-out of jail time.).
Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington simply made up false data to claim that men raped women all day and all night, and all over the world. It was simply an agenda.
"I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie … I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name." —Norma McCorvey, "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade1
"the (in)famous Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, has come back to haunt us. The plaintiffs of both landmark decisions - now Christians - seek to overturn the cases with the claim that they were both pawns." LeadershipU, Jan. 23, 2008.
I think this is important to archive here:
I've read about this from other sources, a while ago. It is a little bit of history.
"Now, the very foundation of both the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases - the cornerstone judgements ensuring unfettered rights to abortion-on-demand - have been undermined by the actual plaintiffs in both cases. According to an article published in Focus on Family magazine, 30 Years of Lies, the plaintiff for the Roe v. Wade case, Norma McCorvey, never even got an abortion after lying to her lawyers about being gang-raped. "When she found out the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and resulted in legalizing abortion in all 50 states, she was stunned" and attempted suicide, writes Tom Neven. Sandra Cano, the "Doe" of the companion case known as Doe v. Bolton, claims that she was played as a pawn by her lawyer, who surreptitiously had her sign an affadivit stating that "she had applied for an abortion, had been turned down and had therefore sued the state of Georgia.... This is a lie," states Cano. She was even opposed to abortion, so the case was not even representative of her views. Both women have begun new lives as followers of Christ and are seeking to have their infamous cases overturned as part of a campaign called Operation Outcry." --"30 Years of Roe v. Wade: Death, Deceit, Depression" online:
http://www.leaderu.com/focus/30yearsroevwade.html
mudkitty, something like that. If women were judged soley by the absolute moral law your statement would be correct. Their doctors are more accountable because they are bound by their oath to preserve life, not kill it to make a buck. That is obscene.
But the goal is to rehabilitate women and their ideas about abortion. There are many women who've had abortions and regretted them in the pro-life movement. In fact, they are embraced by the movement because we recognize they were victims of a larger scheme and in need of forgiveness like anyone else. Many of these women find absolution in the pro-life movement.
Make no mistake about it; abortion is a mortal sin. It severes a woman from God. It is one of the greatest heights of evil to kill an unborn child because she views it as an inconvenience, mistake or burden.
I'm referring to punishment in this life, not the next.
mudkitty, so was I.
The problem is that abortion is now legal so if Roe v. Wade were overtunred it would be difficult to punish retoractively. If Roe v. Wade was overturned and turned back to the states and a woman in a particular state had an abortion in which it were illegal than she and her doctor should be punished. It's up to the state to decide the punishment, but murder is murder. I think it should be harsh.
100,000 march on Washington in support of life and it doesn't make the news, but britney running away from a courthouse, and the contents of heath legers medicine cabinet was worth hours of commentary. thank CNN, the most trusted name in news, to know, and tell you, what's important in life.
CalPatriot, that's a powerful excerpt.
Mark, interestingly enough, the subject of Britney Spears' episodes relate to her children. Everyone's so concerned about "the children". I guess as long as they're born?
Isn't it dispicable? I feel the same as you about it, did you know that last year nearly 20,000 abortions were performed here in nz?
Can someone provide me with an argument against abortion that does NOT include God or religion? I don’t want the laws of this country to be based on God or religion – I want them to be based on what is right and what is wrong. I know plenty of people who are religious but still are able to recognize what is right and what is wrong – they still have morals.
I’m tired of the God/religion argument when it comes to abortion and making it illegal. That’s fine if you want to believe abortion is a sin and invoke religion. I have no problem with that. But you have to do better than that if you want to make it illegal. We can’t legislate using the Bible.
SF, what's wrong with God and religion?
Ron Paul made the argument minus God and religion. Life starts at conception. It's that simple.
Abortion is a moral issue. No need to legislate the Bible but ask yourself where our rule of law comes from: the 10 commandments. Laws against murder, stealing and so are are rooted in Judeo-Christian law.
Why are people so desperate to take a good thing, i.e., God, out of law and public life? It is God who has set the standard for community and social life as well as the basis for justice. Love your neighbor as your self and love God; all commandments come from that. Laws are to protect people from their neighbors who don't love God and don't act in a benevolent way toward them.
I wasn't only speaking retroactively; Do you think women who seek abortions should be put to death if/or after, Roe gets overturned?
Are you actually saying it's worse to accept money for an abortion, than to seek out, submit, and pay for an abortion?
Or are you just suggesting that's it's cool there be no earthly justice for over 50 million murders? Are you willing to just look the other way...in this life? What would that make you? Complicit?
Your comments to SF contradict one of your previous statements, Amy. You make the case for choosing life, then in a previous statement say that Ron Paul is wrong about the war. War is killing, Amy. War is NOT Pro-Life. Catholics believe that it is a sin to kill, whether it be an unborn child or an innocent Iraqi.
There ARE some things worth dying for. The protection of multinational corporate interests is not one of them.
As retired Army (1978-1998) and having been in the Middle East in 1991/1992, I find it is sad to see the direction the US military and our government has taken.
mudkitty, abortionists don't simply accept money for the abortion, they commit the abortion with the consent of the mother. He is the doctor. He took the Hippocratic oath, not the patient, which includes:
My opinion is that both woman and doctor are guilty. Which should know better, the doctor who took the oath to preserve life or the mother who carries it? I don't know, but they each bear grave responsibility.
Your other rhetoric doesn't pass the common sense test. We pro-lifers try to respect the law. Roe v. Wade is the law. We seek within the law to change it. The blood of the 50 million babies are not on my hands, but the hands of those truly complicit and guilty of the murders. That is, the doctors, the mothers and the judges who passed bad law.
I stood last week in the single digit degree weather at our courthouse holding vigil for the unborn who are currently threatened by abortion and the 50 million who have already been aborted. That's not complicity, dear.
Amy, I understand your point of view, but you’re incorrect about the war. This war is about liberation, not killing. Al-Qaeda is about killing. Operation Iraqi Freedom is about liberation. Far fewer people have died in this war than under Saddam.
Since we’re speaking about children, Human Rights Watch cited the fact that 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 died between 1998 and 2003 under Saddam Hussein from completely preventable diseases. Saddam hoarded the Oil for Food money and lined his bathrooms in gold rather than use it to help his people, which was the intent of the money from the U.N. To leave children to this fate is completely inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
Jesus was also accused of not adhering to the faith by Pharisees who refused to see the bigger picture. Jesus healed on the Sabbath and was accused of breaking the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Jesus ate with sinners and was accused of being "unclean". The U.S.went into Iraq to liberate Iraqis from an EVIL man compared often to Hitler and we're accused of being warmongers. This is par for the course.
Did you have a problem Bill Clinton signing the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998?
I would also suggest your understanding of both Catholicism and Operation Iraqi Freedom is limited. I could be wrong but this is the sense I get. If all wars were never to take place, you have an issue with God himself. I’ll refer you to the Old Testament, King David the warrior king and his lineage Jesus Christ.
Also, as a Catholic military family, we are surrounded by devout Catholics who support the war effort and who serve in both Afghanistan and Iraq. This includes priests as well.
We also have friends who are Catholic priests in Iraq. I am very realistic about the negative implications of this endeavor but also the positive implications as well. It is not incompatible with Catholicism.
I'm asking you, Amy, about what should happen to women who seek out, contract for, and pay for abortions IF ROE IS OVERTURNED. Why don't you want to address that directly? If abortion is murder, and a woman conspires to murder, then what should be the punishment for the woman? The hitman isn't the only one who gets punished for murder. The person who hires the hitman is also punished. So, IF YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, AMY, THAT IS, IF ROE VS WADE IS OVERTURNED, what should be the woman's punishment?
Just come out and say it. Should she get the death penalty for being complicit in what you believe is the murder of her child?
mud, I can't "come out and say" what you want me to say.
I have already answered what should happen to women who have already had abortions. They should repent and move on. What you're asking is the equivalent to what should happen to someone who had a drink BEFORE prohibition. Your question is meant to be a trap but its completely flawed logic. Sadly, immoral and illegal are sometimes two different things as in legalized abortion, which is immoral.
I've also addressed it in the moral and spiritual senses, which you completely dismissed because I "brought God into it", as you said.
I want the law to be changed, but what is law now is the law. This is how we pro-lifers work: within the law. We don't burn things down or cohearse people, we protest, make a case and lobby for change in the law.
I've also answered what should happen to women who obtain and abortion in a state in which it is illegal in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.
I also believe many women choose ignorance when it comes to abortion because human nature doesn't want to be confronted with the truth if it means our consciences will be bothered. That can take the element of premediated murder out of the picture, even though that is exactly what it is.
So do I want to see women executed? No, I want to see women not have abortions.
Talk about copping out, and tap dancing...
The question is: IF Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, should women who seek out, and contract for, their abortions be prosecuted for murder, and quite possibly, executed?
And hey - if you're willing to overlook 50 million (or more) murders (in your opinion) if Roe is overturned, how serious can you be, Amy?
You don't have to say what I want you to say...put it in your own words, for all the world, not to mention; your god, to read and witness. But please, just answer the question, or I have to question your commitment to your cause.
BTW - sly, Amy - I didn't ask you if you "want to see women executed." I asked you if you want to see women who, in your own opinion, contract the
murder of their own child, prosecuted for that murder.
Wow, you really "skirt" around the issue.
Wow - you equated having a drink before prohibition to murder/abortion. Wow and double wow.
You're acting as if you actually care about the unborn, mudkitty. Bravo!
I didn't make a moral equivlence, I made an example, and a good one. Laws aren't retroactive, they are current and future. A person cannot be brought to trial for a crime they didn't commit, and as of now abortion is not legally a crime, although it certainly is morally.
I'll answer your question. IF Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion illegal in a particular state, and a woman seeks out an abortion in that state, yes, she should be prosecuted for murder, as should her doctor. If that particular state has the death penalty, they should be executed if found guilty.
Scott Peterson took a chance when he killed his wife and unborn child. He's paying the penalty. Should women be any different?
The female Marine presumed murdered by the fellow Marine who probably got her pregnant... he should too be tried for murder of BOTH mother and baby.
Or do you have a problem with California and North Carolina law?
It's up to each state to decide if abortion should be legal or not. Within those states, the effort will continue by pro-lifers to change the laws in those states. This is the way the constituion works.
Is that clear enough? You're trying to sidestep law and the Constitution which gives all powers not expressly given to the Federal government back to the states.
My opinion is that yes women and their doctors should be prosecuted for murder if abortion is illegal and they procure one anyone.
I'm not acting as if, I'm assuming your position, and taking it to it's logical conclusion. I think the entire world should know what your position, and what your conclusion, is. I think it's extremely important that the Nation, and the entire world know that, because I think you're emblematic of a certain type of thinking. I want to proclaim your type of thinking from the rooftops, and along the highways and by-ways, as they say in the bible.
No, mud, the logical conclusion is that murder is wrong and we have to obey the rule of law. This is why we pro-lifers tolerate abortion and don't burn things down like say the anti-war nuts. This is why we're working to change the law. And if the law says abortion is illegal a woman who has an abortion should be penalized, she should, shouldn't she? Why not?
Nice try, though.
And please don't try to quote the Bible. It just makes you look silly.
Chapter and verse?
I didn't quote the bible, Amy, I merely referenced it. But if I wanted to quote the bible, it's my right to quote it, chapter and verse, all day long, if I please. And it would be easy, because I have the bible
right here, at my fingertips.
As for the Highways & By-ways verse, evangelicals know that one very well. Now I realize you're a Paulist, and not an evangelical, but if your reading this now, and you really give a darn about what the bible actually says, go to any online bible site and type in "high-ways and by-ways" in the search space.
What are you saying? Only some people have the right to reference the bible? Are you saying the bible is only to be quoted by certain special people of which you approve? Are saying the bible is so open to interpretation that it can be quoted out of context?
*****
So let's just be clear: IF Roe is overturned, and abortion is illegal,
you have NO problem with prosecuting, and executing, women who seek out and pay for one. That all I want to know here.
Wow, I can't believe you aren't bashing Ron Paul. Why the change?
Ron Paul doesn't need us to add to his bashing. He brings it on himself and revels in it.
nor luap, believe it or not I actually like Ron Paul. I think he's a great man, misled on foreign affairs and national defense but he's right on about a lot of issues. He's more right about Issues than John McCain, that's for sure.
Mud, it isn't up to me to determine what the law should be state by state.
Ron Paul didn't have a sizable practice, nor a good education if he didn't know what an ectopic pregnancy is. What a liar.
Huh!! You self righteous little worm!!! Get a life of your own and let others worry about themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mud, with all due respect, you're pathetic!
erik, self-righteous? How judgmental.
Right, the unborn babies about to be pulled limb from limb can worry about themselves. You sure aren't.