In a “Voice of the People” letter appearing in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, JoAnn Lee Frank of Clearwater, Florida says the following:

The bill passed in Alabama banning nearly all abortions smacks of contempt and misogynistic views toward women. Why else would so many white Republican male legislators willfully rule that women carry a fetus to full term in cases of rape and incest? Even if it is their religious belief, it has no business influencing the law. The attitude of the lawmakers is not only cruel and unjust, it’s also sick and destructive. This stunning decision violates the constitutional protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

How does opposition to human slaughter—including the slaughter of about 440,000 female humans annually—constitute “contempt and misogynistic views toward women”? And are the 36% of women who oppose abortion in “all or most cases” as revealed in a Pew Forum poll guilty of contempt for women and misogyny?

Frank asked why “so many white Republican male legislators willfully rule that women carry a fetus to full term in cases of rape or incest.” That’s an easy-peasy question to answer.

First, the voters in Alabama—including female voters—elected “so many white Republican male legislators.” Perhaps Alabama voters don’t discriminate based on race, skin color, or sex as Frank and so many other “progressives” do. Perhaps they judge candidates for public office by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their unchosen biological sex. One presumes that these white Republican male legislators are carrying out the will of their constituents, including their diversely hued female constituents.

Second, the white Republican male legislators—like humans of other colors and humans of the only other sex in our sexually dimorphic species—evidently understand the scientific fact that the product of conception between two humans is a human and that more-developed humans have no moral right to exterminate less-developed humans based on the evil actions of the biological fathers of those less-developed humans.

The decision of those lawmakers to protect the lives of humans in the womb is neither cruel, unjust, sick, nor destructive. It is the attitudes of people like Frank who have no regard for the dignity, worth, and rights of incipient human lives and who perversely call the slaughter of humans in the womb “health care” that are cruel, unjust, sick, and destructive—attitudes that result in the literal destruction of a human life.

Word to Frank: The Constitution says not one word about abortion. The Declaration of Independence does, however, say this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Another word to Frank: The right to have our religious beliefs influence political decisions and the law is guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It does not prohibit citizens of faith from having their religious beliefs inform political decisions. (I would add that no “progressive” ever tells homosexuals who attend heretical churches that it is constitutionally impermissible for their religious beliefs about homosexuality to influence law or public policy.)

Perhaps Frank doesn’t know that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said this in his Letter from Birmingham Jail:

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.

To “progressives,” the idea of a separation of church and state no longer points to the importance of protecting religious freedom from the intrusive power of the state but instead refers to coercively eradicating religious expression from the public square. Only secular worldviews, which are shaped by myopic, dogmatic, unproved assumptions, will be tolerated—you know, the kind of assumptions that secularists argue religious worldviews represent.

Such a distortion of the idea of a separation of church and state poses a danger not just to people of faith but to the welfare of the nation. Can anyone look honestly at the state of the culture and reasonably argue that American society has benefited from six decades of divestment of religious influence from the culture?

People from diverse faith traditions and no faith could all arrive at the same position on a particular public policy. For example, although Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Catholics, Baptists, and atheists may all oppose abortion because they value human life, the reasons for that valuation of life differ.

If there is a secular purpose for the law (e.g., to protect incipient human life), then voting for it does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The source of the various parties’ desires to protect incipient life is no business of the government. It would be not only absurd but also unethical for the government to try to ascertain the motives and beliefs behind anyone’s opposition to abortion and equally unethical for the government to assert that only those who have no religious faith may vote to oppose abortion. Such an assertion would most assuredly violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Moreover, lawmaking absent an understanding that there exist moral truths that are objective and universal would represent an illegitimate and hubristic arrogation of power. Acknowledging that there is objective truth regarding what is right and wrong and that it is universal and knowable is essential to democratic institutions. What sense does outrage at human rights violations make if we assert there are no universal, transcendent, eternal, objective truths? And if we agree that these truths exist, that they transcend the subjective opinions of any particular individual, then what is their source other than a supernatural, eternal, transcendent being?

I guess JoAnn Lee Frank believes the exercise of raw governmental power and control over the lives of its citizens absent any acknowledgment of objective moral truth is a good thing. Others tremble at such an idea.

Like Leftists around the country, Leftists in Springfield are apoplectic that pro-life Americans are finally making some real progress in protecting babies in the womb. Rumors are circulating that anti-life lawmakers in Springfield are gearing up to push their bills very soon. Please speak out now against their efforts to make human slaughter even easier in Illinois.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send a message to your state senator, state representative, and to Gov. Pritzker. Urge them to stop targeting innocent pre-born children and vulnerable women in Illinois. Ask your state senator, state representative, and Gov. Pritzker to oppose all anti-life legislation.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Letter-Exposes-Bigoted-Anti-Liberty-and-Anti-Life-Attitudes-of-Leftists_audio.mp3

In a “Voice of the People” letter appearing in Sunday’s Chicago Tribune, JoAnn Lee Frank of Clearwater, Florida says the following:

The bill passed in Alabama banning nearly all abortions smacks of contempt and misogynistic views toward women. Why else would so many white Republican male legislators willfully rule that women carry a fetus to full term in cases of rape and incest? Even if it is their religious belief, it has no business influencing the law. The attitude of the lawmakers is not only cruel and unjust, it’s also sick and destructive. This stunning decision violates the constitutional protections guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.

How does opposition to human slaughter—including the slaughter of about 440,000 female humans annually—constitute “contempt and misogynistic views toward women”? And are the 36% of women who oppose abortion in “all or most cases” as revealed in a Pew Forum poll guilty of contempt for women and misogyny?

Read more…

Many of us have wondered how long it would be before a prominent official proclaimed that rogue federal judges, like the proverbial emperor, have no clothes and thus no authority to make up laws.

That’s what Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore did this past week in a letter to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, in which he began by asserting that “the recent ruling of Judge Callie Granade … has raised serious, legitimate concerns about the propriety of federal court jurisdiction over the Alabama Sanctity of Marriage Amendment.”

In 2006, Alabama voters approved the marriage measure by 81 percent to 19 percent. On January 23, Judge Granade, a George W. Bush appointee at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, became the latest federal judge to join the lemming brigade and leap off the Cliffs of Insanity to find a previously unknown constitutional “right” to marriages lacking a bride or a groom.

She ruled that Alabama’s clear and timeless definition violated the 14thAmendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process. Then she issued a two-week stay of her ruling, perhaps so that Alabamans can ponder their loss of meaningful citizenship in a self-governing republic.

When the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 to afford the nation’s freed slaves the protection of the law found in the Fifth Amendment, one can only imagine a typical discussion on the assembly floor of various statehouses, including Alabama’s:

“Tell me again why Rhett can’t marry Barney? I know that’s where the Founders were really going when they ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791. I say, it was quite clever of them to foresee using freed slaves someday as a pretext.”

In his letter, Judge Moore reminded the governor that, “As you know, nothing in the United States Constitution grants the federal government the authority to redefine the institution of marriage.”

After citing Alabama’s Constitution and court cases, Judge Moore quoted from the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. Ramsey (1885) that required Utah to prohibit legalized polygamy in order to join the union. He wrote:

“Even the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the basic foundation of marriage and family upon which our Country rests is ‘the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.’”

Noting that “44 federal courts have imposed by judicial fiat same-sex marriages in 21 states of the Union, overturning the express will of the people in those states,” Moore went on to praise the Alabama Probate Judges Association, “which has advised probate judges to follow Alabama law in refusing to license marriages between two members of the same sex.”

Judge Moore knows a little about bucking the system. In 1995, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued to remove a wooden Ten Commandments plaque that he kept on his courtroom wall. They lost. In 2001, as Alabama’s Chief Justice, he had a large Ten Commandments monument installed in the Alabama Judicial Building in Montgomery. After he refused to enforce an order by a federal judge to remove the monument, he himself was removed from office in November 2003 by the Alabama Court of the Judiciary. He unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2006 and 2010, but was re-elected as Alabama Chief Justice in 2012.

If only for the purpose of confounding the media, which love to portray Alabama and the rest of the South as a hotbed of drooling, racist homophobes out of the film Deliverance, it would have been nice to see this kind of forthright courage coming out of a northern or western state.

After all, scenes of Birmingham Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor’s men using fire hoses and nightsticks on peaceful demonstrators back in 1963 are as vivid as the latest civil rights documentary. And the movie Selma is a fresh reminder of the epic struggle to overcome resistance to integration.

Judge Moore risks being equated with Bull Connor, because that’s part of the left’s game plan of intimidation. But he’s a principled jurist who swore an oath to defend the Constitution, not to genuflect to lawless federal judges who are raining legal havoc on the nation. For all the moral-laden language they use, these emperors without clothes are hell-bent on casting aside the moral restraints that allow society to flourish.

Speaking of restraints, is anyone in authority going to suggest that Associate Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, both of whom have actually officiated at same-sex ceremonies, recuse themselves from the monumental marriage case that the Court will hear this spring?

They’ve abandoned any pretext of objectivity and are practically daring someone to call them on it.

Congressional leaders? Presidential candidates? Chief Justice John Roberts? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

This article was originally posted at the TownHall.com website.