Children are a blessing from God. For almost 50 years, the left has supported the destruction of those blessings through legalized abortion. Roe v Wade, the law which initially endorsed abortion only in the 1st trimester of pregnancy, has over the years opened up states to new and more extensive abortion laws. Several states have even introduced legislation that legalizes abortion in the 3rd trimester and  up to birth in recent years. But now we have a new level of depravity. States are calling for legislation to legalize infanticide.

Recently two bills were introduced that would have legalized infanticide in Maryland and California. In Maryland, this bill was called the Pregnant Person’s Freedom Act. One of the central portions of the bill prevented any investigation into a “perinatal death related to a failure to act.” The term “perinatal” can vary widely in definition. In general, the term refers to the period just before and after birth. This period can start at 20 weeks of pregnancy and go to the end of the first month after the baby is born. Under this bill, a doctor, nurse, or parent who failed to act with reasonable and expected care leading to the death of a baby up to 28 days of age could not be criminally charged. This bill, had it passed, would have legalized both neglect and murder. Thankfully, the people of Maryland showed their outrage and demanded that the legislature reject the bill. The sponsor then withdrew the bill after the fallout

The General Assembly of California referred AB 2223 to the Committee on Health. This bill would decriminalize all deaths in the perinatal period. The bill’s author, Assemblymember (D-Oakland) Buffy Wicks, claims this would not lead to infanticide. However, the bill prevents any coroner or police investigation into a death in the perinatal period even if medical personnel were not present at the time of death. A parent could easily allow their child to die from neglect and never face any investigation if this law passed. Wicks claims the bill is to protect women from investigations into deaths because of “pregnancy-related causes.” The bill’s language is vague, however. Even the California Assembly Committee on Judiciary has stated that the ambiguous phrasing of the bill could lead to the legalization of infanticide.

Both Maryland and California have “safe haven” laws that allow a parent to surrender their infant to a hospital, fire station, or other designated sites. A child can be surrendered up to the first 72 hours after birth in California. The baby can be surrendered up to 10 days after birth in Maryland. These programs save lives by allowing mothers to safely surrender their babies if they cannot care for them. If we decriminalize infanticide, many babies would be killed before making it to the safe havens. The number of deaths as a result of neglect will skyrocket.

Pro-life groups have long believed that abortion would eventually lead to infanticide. These bills in Maryland and California are just the beginning of the atrocities that the pro-abortion leftists would like to introduce. In Illinois, we should remain vigilant to watch for any hint that the left would try to push such legislation. The left has already passed the most extreme abortion laws in Illinois, making such a possibility very real. The vileness of the left knows no bounds and is looking for us to have our guard down. We should not assume that this could not affect our state. In fact, if  any state passes pro-infanticide legislation, we can safely assume that the left will start to try to pass it here.

Take ACTION: To prevent our state from introducing and considering such wicked legislation, please be sure to be registered and vote in our upcoming mid-term elections on June 28. We must have state and federal lawmakers who support life affirming policies and be willing to block the attempts of the abortionist cheerleaders and profiteers.  If you want to see which candidates support a pro-life and pro-family agenda, you can pre-order your voter guide here.

Register to Vote:  It’s never been easier!  You can now register to vote online at the Illinois Board of Election.

An Alabama lawsuit on behalf of unborn black babies that’s making its way through the state’s courts is alleging that the abortion industry is deliberately targeting black Americans and other minorities.

If successful, the attorneys and activists behind the case claim that it might ultimately lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court opinion that struck down state laws against abortion.

Even if the case doesn’t succeed in court, legal analysts and experts in the field say the implications in the court of public opinion are hard to overstate.

The lawsuit was filed by pro-life leader Amie Beth Shaver, named Miss Alabama in 1994, on behalf of “Baby Q,” an African American baby in Alabama who was unborn when the case began. Baby Q represents all other similar black babies in the womb across the state.

According to the complaint, Baby Q and other members of the “class” are being unlawfully discriminated against and targeted for abortion by the industry. Abortion giant Planned Parenthood acknowledges its roots in the eugenics movement, although it says it’s working to rectify that legacy.

“About 80 members of Baby Q’s class, which is African American babies in the womb, lose their lives in abortion every week in Alabama,” Sam McLure, the lead lawyer representing the babies, told The Epoch Times in a phone interview. “Enough is enough. This has to stop.”

Several leaders involved in the case told us that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry more broadly have a long history of racism and support for eugenics, the highly controversial idea that humanity should be “improved” by weeding out allegedly inferior genes from the population.

“This case really boils down to the question of whether states have the right to prohibit eugenics abortion,” McLure added.

Many of the black leaders involved in the case were also behind the Equality Proclamation, signed in 2020 on the 158th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, to shed light on what they describe as the systematic targeting of black babies.

Why Alabama?

Conservative Alabama is the best jurisdiction in the United States to wage this fight, McLure said.

Because of a measure approved by about 60 percent of voters in 2018, Alabama has one of the strongest protections for the unborn in its state Constitution. It says the policy of the state is “to recognize and support the importance of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life.”

The Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the personhood of unborn babies in other cases not directly involving abortion, McLure and other attorneys involved in the case told The Epoch Times.

The Baby Q case also hinges on a state law known as the Human Life Protection Act, which makes conducting an abortion a felony punishable by up to life in prison. Signed into law by Gov. Kay Ivey in May of 2019, the measure bans all abortions in the state except to protect the health and life of the mother.

That law is widely seen as one of the strongest in the nation prohibiting abortion. It is even stronger than the Mississippi statute currently being considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case many legal experts on both sides of the debate believe might overturn or at least scale back Roe v. Wade.

In October of 2019, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against the Alabama law, arguing that it violates existing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

As a result, Ivey and state Attorney General Steve Marshall have declined to enforce it for now, as the U.S. Supreme Court once again takes up the issue of abortion.

Legal filings and attorneys in the Baby Q case also point to the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects unenumerated rights, as well as the 14th Amendment, which provides for equal protection under the law.

Finally, the plaintiffs cite the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which reserves to the states or the people all powers not specifically surrendered to the federal government, as authorizing or even requiring state action in defense of the right to life.

Intervening in the case on behalf of Baby Q are almost 50 state lawmakers and a supermajority of the state Senate, as well as dozens of black leaders from across America alleging that the abortion industry is targeting people based on race.

State Republican leaders are also active on the issue, with the executive committee calling on all GOP officials to use every tool at their disposal to stop abortion in Alabama, including shutting down clinics.

The Objective

The Baby Q case, originally filed in October of 2020, is aimed at forcing the government “to protect preborn African-American children from discrimination and to ensure their equal protection under the law,” according to court filings.

“The abortion industry has systematically targeted the African American community for extermination by abortion, and this history is undisputed,” said McLure, citing historical evidence and even recent statements.

More than 20 million black babies have been aborted in the United States, and are three to five times more likely to be aborted than white babies, said McLure, who noted that this sort of racial targeting is clearly prohibited under state and federal law.

“In New York City, more black babies are killed in abortion than are born alive,” he continued. “In Alabama, black Americans make up 27 percent of the population, and yet they make up more than 60 percent of the abortion cases. Nobody can argue that this is not deliberate.”

The plaintiffs in the case are asking the court to order Ivey to enforce the Human Life Protection Act and protect unborn children in the state from abortion and discrimination based on their race.

Eventually, the goal is to overturn Roe v. Wade and restore protections for the unborn that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case undermined nearly 50 years ago.

Because equal protection and prohibitions on racial discrimination are so firmly established in U.S. jurisprudence, the activists and attorneys behind the case believe it might be a game-changer in the abortion debate.

The next major milestone will come on April 20, when the judge will hold a hearing on the issue after more than a year of inaction.

“Finally, on April 20th, these African American babies are going to get their day in court,” McLure said.

The previous hearing, which took place virtually on Zoom, dealt with whether the case should be public. While the abortion industry is seeking to keep the case behind closed doors, the state judge expressed a willingness to keep the proceedings open.

Attorney Brent Helms, who is representing the legislators seeking to intervene in the case, explained part of the rationale in a phone interview. “If the judge denies this case, that offers us the opportunity to get to the Alabama Supreme Court,” he said. “When the legislature looks at this case, Alabama’s law is more strict and says that the unborn child is a person with constitutional rights,” Helms continued. “Those rights cannot be denied without due process and equal protection.”

He added, “That means the child’s right to life would supersede or at least compete with the mother’s alleged right to privacy, as the right to life is an enumerated right, while the mother’s privacy rights to obtain an abortion were discovered in the penumbras as opposed to actually being written down.”

Regardless of how the state circuit court judge rules, the losing side is expected to immediately appeal to the Alabama Supreme Court. The court is known as one of the nation’s more conservative state supreme courts. From there, it’s practically certain that the losing side will appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Role of the US Supreme Court

Numerous legal experts told The Epoch Times that the courts involved in the Alabama case may wait until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks before making any major decisions.

However, the Mississippi statute only protects unborn babies after 15 weeks, while Alabama is seeking to protect them from the time of conception. The Baby Q case also deals with racial discrimination, while the Mississippi case doesn’t.

The plaintiffs and intervenors hope the apparent conflict between the Alabama state Supreme Court’s positions and the federal district court’s rulings will be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of protecting the right to life of the unborn in Alabama and beyond.

McLure, the lead attorney for Baby Q, said justices from theU.S.  Supreme Court have been leaving “breadcrumbs” in their opinions regarding what elements they might like to see in a major abortion case.

In his concurring opinion issued in the case of Box v. Planned Parenthood, for example, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the issue of racial targeting as an important component.

“We think the type of case the U.S. Supreme Court wants to take on to return abortion issues back to the states involves eliminating the abortion industry’s history of racial targeting, a purely state law claim, and a reliance on the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” McLure said, noting that the Baby Q case had all of those.

“Obviously, we care about all life in the womb, but this case in particular deals with the racial targeting of children of African descent and this is a key issue,” he added.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s own 1973 ruling on abortion acknowledged that if the “suggestion of [a fetus’] personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] amendment.”

The people of Alabama, as well as many medical and scientific experts, have concluded that unborn children are indeed persons, attorneys and leaders involved in the case said. Thus, under the reasoning in Roe v. Wade, the high court must act.

The hope is that, through the courts, the abortion industry can be prevented from targeting unborn persons based on race, and eventually, state governments can regain the authority to protect all unborn lives, McLure said.

Racism in Planned Parenthood, Abortion

Dozens of prominent black leaders from across the United States are involved in the case, arguing that Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry have been deliberately targeting the nation’s African American population and other minorities.

It started with Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, black leaders told The Epoch Times.

In her writings and her speeches to groups such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), Sanger openly advocated for eugenics to control the reproduction of populations she believed were less desirable.

Indeed, in 1939, Sanger launched the infamous “Negro Project” to pay and train black leaders to promote birth control and other measures in the black community.

Eventually, when Alan Guttmacher took the helm of Sanger’s organization, abortion became a major element of the campaign, Georgia gubernatorial candidate and Baby Q intervenor Catherine Davis told The Epoch Times in a phone interview.

After Guttmacher and his allies were able to get the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down state laws protecting the unborn, “Planned Parenthood established their abortion clinics primarily in communities of color across America,” Davis said.

Among other evidence, she pointed to an investigation using 2010 Census data showing that about 80 percent of the organization’s abortion clinics were located in minority neighborhoods.

Planned Parenthood would claim that their clinics are located where there is “the greatest need,” Davis said.

“But if you look at their marketing, they are regularly targeting black Americans,” she added. “On Halloween, they even tweeted out that it was safer for a black woman to have an abortion than to carry the baby to term. This is outrageous.”

According to Davis and the dozens of other black leaders involved in the case, this is racist population control and eugenics.

“The closest example of this is what Hitler did in Nazi Germany,” she added. “Look at Planned Parenthood: This is exactly what Hitler was doing to Jews, but Sanger’s program was more successful because they take care to disguise their agenda as ‘helping’ women and protecting their ‘right’ to abortion.”

Another prominent leader involved in the case, Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece and pro-life leader Alveda King, called this battle “the civil rights issue of our time.”

“No racial group in America has ever been more left out of societal protection nor suffered more deliberate discrimination, dehumanization, agonizing dismemberment, and death legally imposed upon them than black children,” she said.

“The Baby Q case is a gauntlet,” King told The Epoch Times in an email. “Pray that the hammer of justice will rule in favor of life.”

The controversial racial component of abortion also was highlighted nationally in the 2009 documentary “Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America,” which argued that the targeting of black Americans through abortion constitutes a genocide.

Planned Parenthood Data Speaks

In recent years, as the Black Lives Matter movement gained prominence, almost 20 Planned Parenthood affiliates have issued public acknowledgments of racism within the organization.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York, for instance, condemned Sanger’s “racist legacy,” while announcing that her name would be removed from its building.

“There is overwhelming evidence for Sanger’s deep belief in eugenic ideology,” the group said. “Removing her name is an important step toward representing who we are as an organization and who we serve.”

Planned Parenthood of Pacific Southwest, meanwhile, acknowledged “white supremacy of the past and present,” including “our own organization” and the “implicit bias” that it said still exists within Planned Parenthood today.

“Planned Parenthood has been complicit in upholding systemic racism,” the group’s Illinois affiliate said.

Similar statements confessing to “present participation in white supremacy” and acknowledging that Sanger’s “racist ideals” have “shaped Planned Parenthood today” were issued by numerous other affiliates.

And yet, the massive disparities continue, advocates say. According to a legal filing by black leaders in the Baby Q case that cites state health statistics, 63 percent of the 7,538 “unborn children killed by abortion providers in Alabama” in 2019 were black.

This shows abortion providers “intentionally target African American children,” the black leaders said in the legal filing. And this “violence” based on race would never be tolerated in any other context, they argued.

Where the Case Goes Now

Later this month, a hearing on the case will be held in state court in Alabama to hear arguments from the various parties involved.

In its response to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Southeast asked the court to dismiss the case, based on lack of jurisdiction and Baby Q supporters’ alleged failure to identify a claim where the court would be able to provide relief. Neither the national Planned Parenthood office nor the Southeast office responded to requests for comment about the Baby Q litigation or the claims of racism.

The governor’s office is taking the same position as the abortion industry, urging the court to dismiss Baby Q’s case and refuse to allow legislators behind the Human Life Protection Act to intervene.

Gov. Ivey’s office didn’t respond by press time to requests for comment on why the governor has declined to enforce the Human Life Protection Act or why she is asking the court to dismiss the case. Attorney General Steve Marshall’s office also didn’t respond by press time.

Col. John Eidsmoe, a prominent constitutional scholar in Alabama who has worked closely with multiple state Supreme Court justices, told The Epoch Times that he doesn’t anticipate a ruling by the Alabama courts until after the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinion in the Mississippi case. That ruling is expected by this summer.

“The general feeling is that the Supreme Court will uphold the Mississippi law, but it is not clear yet whether it will overturn or simply modify Roe v. Wade,” added Eidsmoe, a professor of Constitutional law at Oak Brook College of Law & Government Policy as well as senior counsel for the Alabama-based Foundation for Moral Law.

Alabama’s Supreme Court, he said, would likely want to wait for a favorable decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on the Mississippi law before moving on this. Eidsmoe also believes that, with its current makeup, the U.S. Supreme Court would be likely to uphold Alabama’s law protecting the unborn as well.

Potentially even more important than the legal issues is what this case could do in the court of public opinion, he said.

Multiple experts and leaders involved in the case told The Epoch Times that these may be the last days for Roe v. Wade, legal abortion, and racial targeting of minorities by the industry. The outcome of the Baby Q case may play a key role in that historic shift.

This article was originally published by the The Epoch Times.

With a bang of a gavel in 1973, 63 million fellow Americans were condemned to die. And the number keeps growing.

Now if the U.S. Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, another pro-abortion justice will be added to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Last week, Judge Jackson, nominated by Biden to the U.S. Supreme Court, faced four days of hearings in the U.S. Senate. South Carolina Republican U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham raised an intriguing point to her: “Every group that wants to pack the court, that believes the court is a bunch of right-wing nuts who are going to destroy America, that considers the Constitution ‘trash’—all wanted you picked. That is all I can say. That so many of these left-wing radical groups who would destroy the law as we know it…supported you is problematic for me.”

Jon Schweppe of the American Principles Project noted, “On abortion and religious liberty, it’s clear where she stands. Jackson co-authored an amicus brief for the Massachusetts NARAL chapter characterizing pro-life sidewalk counselors as ‘indisputably harmful’ and supporting the notion that they should not be allowed anywhere near an abortion clinic.”

He adds, “Why would leftist groups like American Atheists, the Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, the National Education Association and the Southern Poverty Law Center push the White House to nominate Jackson and the Senate to confirm?….Ketanji Brown Jackson is a woke Trojan horse, as the preponderance of evidence suggests.”

When asked to define what a woman is, Judge Jackson declined, claiming she’s “not a biologist.” When asked when human life begins, she said to Louisiana U.S. Senator John Kennedy: “Senator, um… I don’t know.”

Gary Bauer responded to her answer: “Of course, this well-educated, Harvard graduate knows life begins at conception. The problem is that she’s all in on abortion on demand.”

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) established by judicial fiat a right to abortion. Thus abortion, said Judge Jackson, is “settled law of the Supreme Court concerning the right to terminate a pregnancy. They established a framework the court has reaffirmed.”

One Constitutional authority had some criticisms of Roe v. Wade as a legal opinion. She said that Roe “tried to do too much, too fast—it essentially made every abortion restriction in the country at the time illegal in one fell swoop—leaving it open to fierce attacks. ‘Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped…may prove unstable.’”

Who was this radical anti-abortion activist that would dare criticize the left’s most beloved decision? It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg–before she became a justice on the high court who did everything in her power to preserve Roe v. Wade.

Writing for Lifenews.com, Micaiah Bilger observes that Judge Jackson has called peaceful pro-life sidewalk counselors at abortion clinics “hostile, noisy and in your face” people.

Bilger added, “Jackson has the support of NARAL Pro-Choice America, which advocates for abortions without limits up to birth…She also ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to defund the billion-dollar abortion chain Planned Parenthood, and she clerked for pro-abortion Justice Stephen Breyer when he issued an opinion against the partial-birth abortion ban.”

I believe abortion is the single most important political issue of our time. It’s not complicated. Abortion takes a human life every time.

When judges rule in favor of abortion, they are playing God. I find it amazing that the left constantly decries bullying, yet they favor abortion rights. What could be more bullying than dismembering a defenseless, unborn child limb by limb because it is perceived as somehow inconvenient?

Some critics on the left, like Bill Maher, say that the only reason conservatives oppose Judge Jackson is because she’s black. But people need to remember that the founder of the nation’s leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was Margaret Sanger, who spoke at a Ku Klux Klan meeting. She wrote a letter to one of her board members (Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, 12/10/1939): “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” No wonder the majority of abortion facilities are in urban areas—to this day.

In our nation’s birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, our founders said that our rights come from the Creator—and first among these rights is the “right to life.” Indeed, if you’re dead, how can you enjoy any other right?

The U.S. Constitution, which is predicated on the Declaration, notes in the preamble that one of its purposes is: “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Our posterity? That is, the yet to be born.

To paraphrase Dr. D. James Kennedy, Judge Jackson should get down on her knees and thank God that her mother wasn’t “pro-choice.”

If you get abortion wrong, you tend to get everything else wrong too.

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

Written by Paula Ryan

In just a few short months, the U.S. Supreme Court will be handing down their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, determining the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law prohibiting women from accessing abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case is expected to determine the fate of Roe v. Wade, the infamous 1973 U.S. Supreme Court ruling preventing states from unduly restricting abortions before the point of viability.

It seems likely that the Court will issue a favorable ruling, which would allow for more extensive protections for the unborn at the state level without interference from the federal courts.  This would be good news. However, it would not be the end of the battle to protect all innocent babies from conception until birth. It also would not undo the damage caused over the past 49 years to families, communities, and individuals throughout the nation but particularly in the Black community.

Since 1973, over 63 million babies have been aborted in the United States, 20 million of whom were Black. According to a report published in January 2022 by the Center for Urban Reform and Education (CURE), while Black women made up 15 percent of the childbearing population in 2018, they obtained 33.6 percent of reported abortions. This translates into 335 abortions per 1,000 live births, which was the highest abortion ratio in the United States. In support of these statistics, the Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), using abortion reporting data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that for more than 30 years Black women have been experiencing abortions at a rate nearly four times that of white women.

And by the way, this is no accident. According to the aforementioned CURE report, 79 percent of the surgical facilities of Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s (PPFA), which is by far the largest abortion provider in the nation, are within walking distance of Black or Hispanic Communities. The Left claims that these facilities are there to provide health care for the members of these communities.  However, the cold hard truth is that they are taking the life of pre-born black babies for money and their own documents prove it.

In their 2016 Annual Report, PPFA claimed to provide “lifesaving care” and to be an irreplaceable component of the nation’s healthcare system. After careful evaluation and study, CLI issued a lengthy report proving that Planned Parenthood centers are primarily focused on contraceptive services, sexually transmitted infection testing, and abortions. Additionally, they noted that there is “little or no demonstrable capability for definitive diagnosis or a range of treatments for any disease or condition at Planned Parenthood centers.” In layman’s terms, this means that if a woman needs a mammogram or biopsy to detect breast cancer, she would NOT be able to receive these tests at any Planned Parenthood facility. In fact, there isn’t a single Planned Parenthood that has the resources to diagnose or treat any type of cancer. Indeed, with the exception of abortion, Planned Parenthood offers no services that cannot be easily found at alternative providers.

This is not surprising. From its founding by Margaret Sanger in the early 1900s, Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has been using abortion to target the Black community. Sanger was a leading proponent of controlling the birth rate of those individuals she deemed undesirable or unfit. Sanger laid out her extreme form of eugenics in a 1932 book entitled, “My Way to Peace” where she called for the sterilization of those with mental and physical disabilities, including “morons, mental defectives, epileptics.”

In 1939, Sanger put her plan into action by introducing the “Negro Project,” which was designed to help states with eliminating the “dysgenic horror story” of blacks who reproduced “carelessly and disastrously.” To increase the effectiveness of the project, Sanger even had the unmitigated gall to recruit Black leaders and Black pastors to sell the concepts of contraception and sterilization to the minority populations.

It wasn’t until April 2021 that PPFA even acknowledged the racist roots of the organization by admitting that Margaret Sanger had aligned herself with ideologies and organizations that were unequivocally white supremacist and in doing so had caused permanent damage to millions of people, including generations Black people. Of course, PPFA’s mea culpa was pure window dressing. PPFA is still targeting Black babies for extermination by sending out the same tired, old message that access to abortion in minority communities is a necessary form of health care.

According to Right to Life of Michigan statistics:

• On average, 900 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

•  The abortion rate for Black women in the United States is almost four times that of White women, which according to CLI, exposes Black women to increased exposure to hemorrhage and infection, the two major causes of maternal mortality.

•  Since 1973, abortion has taken more Black American lives than every other cause of death combined.

Sadly, even when numbers like this clearly expose the determination of the abortion industry – and PPFA in particular – to abort Black babies, prominent Black leaders like former President Barack Obama and Vice President Kamala Harris continue to support them.

While this whole line of thought is frustrating and sad, the most appalling aspect is that the systematic extermination of 20 million Black babies over the past 49 years has happened in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA…Land of the free…Home of the brave. We need to be better than this.

Regardless of what the U.S. Supreme Court decides in Dobbs, there’s no way to erase the damage that abortion has done to the Black community. However, we can build a better America by protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. After all, as Nelson Mandela pointed out, “There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”

This article was originally published by The Family Foundation.

Have you heard? Abortion cheerleaders were at it again! Earlier this week they attempted to overturn state legislative abortion restrictions. Their weapon? The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act” (H.R. 3755) – led by U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Representative Judy Chu (D-CA). The proposal passed the U.S. House by a vote of 218-211 on September 24, 2021. It was taken up by the U.S. Senate on Monday, February 28, 2022 where cloture was opposed by all Republicans and one Democrat: U.S. Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV). The motion failed by a vote of 46-48.

In spite of progress we have made since 2019 to reverse abortion on demand with the passage of heartbeat bills in Ohio, Georgia, Louisiana, Missouri, Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Texas (the Guttmacher Institute predicts up to 25 more states may ban abortions if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade), this bill had the potential to quash it all. It’s dastardly features included overturning:

• Waiting periods before an abortion
• Limits that abortions be performed by licensed physicians
• Requirements to provide information about their unborn child to those seeking an abortion
• Requirement to provide alternative to abortion to those seeking abortion
• Federal limits on taxpayer funding of abortion

And while all of the above are heartbreaking, there’s more! It would also have banned:

• Laws allowing medical professionals to opt-out of providing abortions (Conscience protection)
• Laws that prohibit abortion after 20 weeks when an unborn child is capable of feeling pain
• Laws that prohibit using abortion as a method of sex selection and abortions done based on a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome
• Parental consent or notification for minors seeking an abortion

And the power of this bill can hardly be overstated. It carried with it the potential to make all elective abortions inevitable and protected by federal law. Stomping all over the 10th Amendment, it would have become the weapon against which individual states became powerless to establish their own true protection for the mother and the unborn. True protection for a woman’s health, or anyone’s for that matter, assumes a respect for life and help in a time of need.

A blessing in disguise of the states’ right to prohibit abortion is the inconvenience inherent in this right for those seeking abortion. In some cases, this inconvenience can work in the mother and her baby’s favor. Finding out about an unplanned pregnancy can, admittedly, be unsettling causing some to rush to a solution that is not a solution at all. When an abortion is not easily and immediately obtained, the time to reflect can allow the mother to realize the actual blessings associated with the pregnancy. The blessings of not only carrying a life but allowing those in your family and community the opportunity to come alongside and support you.

However, not all can see the blessing of states’ ban on abortion. The CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, Adrienne Mansanares, recently bemoaned this in an interview with the Las Vegas Sun. She finds the “inconvenience” of having to travel to another state, facing fatigue from such travel, and finding childcare for other children while the “procedure” is performed a “heavy burden”. She also considers it a heavy burden on the states where the abortions are sought, “So that really puts a burden on the public health system of those states where reproductive health care is accessible and legal” as these states pick up the slack.

Which brings our thoughts to the irony of this bill’s name- -Women’s Health Protection. Not only is there nothing protective, for the mother or the baby, in assisting a woman to murder her unborn child. Neither is it healthcare.

​​According to experts, they are not safer than childbirth and women do not need them to be healthy. Nor do they suffer when they do not have easy access to abortion. Researchers (abortion activities) at the University of California San Francisco found that after 5 years, 96 percent of women who were denied abortions were glad they had not had one. The moral of the story, easy access to abortion, rather than being health care, is a disservice to women.

Praise the Lord! H.R. 3755 was stopped!

How did your U.S. Senator vote? If they opposed the bill, thank them. If they supported the bill, let them know your thoughts. Both U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Tammy Duckworth voted to end debate on this legislation. Contact your U.S. Senator using this link.

To view a longer analysis via the National Right to Life scorecard use this link.

Read more:

Manchin Sides With GOP to Kill Dems’ Radical Pro-Abortion Bill (AFN)

U.S. Senate Democrats Fail to Federally Enshrine Abortion on Demand Until Birth (FRC)

A national group of Satanists is putting their cards on the table.  They are opposing abortion restrictions and adamantly defending abortion as worship of their god.

Meanwhile, a group of liberal pastors in Maine claims that abortion can supposedly be the Christian thing to do. In an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News, “Why a Christian minister supports abortion rights,” their leader writes of the importance of “reproductive justice.”

Abortion is a spiritual battle. So what does the Bible have to say abortion?

I write this shortly after the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (and its companion decision, Doe v. Bolton) of January 22, 1973, that gave us abortion on demand. And here we are 63 million abortions later. That’s nothing to celebrate—but much to mourn.

Psalm 106:37 speaks of a time of disobedient Israelites, noting, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to false gods. They shed innocent blood…and the land was desecrated by their blood. They defiled themselves by what they did.”

Did Christ ever address abortion? Not directly. But note how His brilliant statement on human relations, the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12), has direct application to the subject of abortion.

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them,” He said in the Sermon on the Mount. You were once an unborn baby. Would you have wanted your mother to kill you in utero? The majority of those mothers feel forced, against their will, to abort.

When Ronald Reagan was running for president in 1980, he was asked why he wasn’t “pro-choice.” He responded, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” Touché.

Dr. D. James Kennedy once said, “If you’re pro-choice, you should get down on your knees and thank God that you’re mother wasn’t pro-choice.”

Some people say that abortion doesn’t kill human beings. And yet everything you and I are—our sex, how tall we will be, the color of our eyes—all of these things were determined at the moment of conception.

And from conception to birth, it’s all one continuous period of growth. The Mayo Clinic documents the humanity and growth of the preborn baby in the womb until birth.

We look back at previous generations, and we say, “How could they have been slave-owners?” Well, I believe future generations will look back at us and ask, “How could they have been so complacent about abortion—especially when they had 3-D sonograms, giving them a window to the womb?”

Many times when a pregnant woman contemplating an abortion gets to see the sonogram of her unborn baby, she changes her mind.

David states in Psalm 139, “For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.”

The prophet Jeremiah says this in the very opening of his book: “The word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” So, here’s this little unborn baby being appointed a prophet of the nations by God Himself.

Jumping ahead to the New Testament, in Luke 1, we read of two pregnant relatives visiting with each other. Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, and Mary, who was pregnant with Jesus. Elizabeth says, “As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.” Baby? The Greek word in Luke 1 is brephos, which means baby.

Luke 2:12 says: “The angels told the shepherds, ‘This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.’” The same word, brephos, is used there. Thus, whether in English or in Greek, the word baby is used for born and unborn alike.

The Bible also says that God has made human beings in His image. He has made us a “little lower than the angels” (Psalm 8:5). But many people today believe that we’re essentially “a little higher than the apes.” As the abortion ethic has spread in our culture, like a cancer, it has cheapened human life all the way around.

It’s time we follow the Biblical ethic and treat the unborn as we ourselves would want to be treated. Let them live.

This article was originally published at JerryNewcombe.com.

It’s hard to fathom that for some people, facilitating human slaughter is the animating purpose of their lives. For some, ensuring that women are legally free to slaughter their own offspring is what gives their lives meaning. And unfortunately, many of them live in Illinois, thereby ensuring that the Illinois swamp is filled with not just fetid excrement coming from Springfield and the governor’s mansion but also with the blood of human fetuses.

Illinois’ human dismemberment and disposal industry has moved into high gear in preparation for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, at which point, more states will pass regulations limiting or eliminating abortion accessibility. On Jan. 21, 2022, the Chicago Tribune reported that “Each year, thousands of women cross state lines to have an abortion in Illinois—and that number could grow exponentially as pending U.S. Supreme Court decisions and new laws in various states challenge reproductive rights across large swaths of the nation.”

In anticipation of possible new laws to protect the right of tiny humans not to be exterminated, Hope Clinic in Granite City, Illinois and Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region have colluded to create the Regional Logistics Center, which is housed in the Planned Parenthood slaughterhouse in Fairview Heights, Illinois.

The anodyne-sounding Regional Logistics Center connects pregnant women—also known as mothers—with “various resources to help with everything from paying for the procedure to travel costs to finding a place to stay overnight.” Leftists want Illinois streets stained with the blood of babies from around the country.

(It is notable that human slaughter-related facilities are never located in affluent left-leaning communities like Highland Park or Glencoe. While Fairview Heights has a median household income of $49, 131 and Granite City of $43,759, Highland Park’s is $100,967 and Glencoe’s is $193,571. You would think liberal towns and villages would be eager to demonstrate their support for the “fundamental right” of women to off their offspring by welcoming abattoirs into their communities.)

Trib reporter Angie Leventis Lourgos leaps ungracefully over the human dimensions of the new project in efficiency:

[W]omen traveling here to terminate a pregnancy will have a new resource designed to make the process easier.

If ever there were a “process” in need of ease, it has to be having one’s child killed. Grease up that “process” so no woman has time to listen to any inner voices telling her to stop.

How embarrassing for reporters to resort to using euphemistic phrases like “terminate a pregnancy.” Is there anyone over the age of twelve who doesn’t know that “terminating a pregnancy” means terminating the life of a fellow human being?

The Regional Logistics Center celebrated its opening “just before the 49th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.” The virtual ribbon-cutting ceremony was virtually attended by Illinois’ morally vacuous governor, J.B. Pritzker, who ironically called the center’s dark business, “‘lifesaving and life-changing work.’” Well, I guess when abortionists turn life into non-life, one could call the work “life-changing.”

Megan Jeyifo, Chicago Abortion Fund

Megan Jeyifo
Chicago Abortion Fund

In an effort to ensure that Illinois remains the Midwest’s premier killing field, this month Pritzker put his money where his mouth is, donating “$100,000 from his campaign to the Personal PAC Independent Committee, whose purpose is preserving reproductive rights in Illinois ‘by making independent expenditures to elect pro-choice candidates to state and local office.’”

One of the resources to which the Regional Logistics Center will connect pregnant women is the Chicago Abortion Fund, whose executive director Megan Jeyifo has ordered the killing of more than one of her own offspring. Finally, she allowed two of her offspring to survive the treacherous waters of her womb and now says this about them:

I honor my abortions when I hug my children. My abortions made their life possible.

Jeyifo sees child sacrifice as a noble deed, one about which she offers this advice to women as they prepare to end the lives of their children:

Wear comfortable clothes. Plan out and look forward to a yummy meal after. Text your best friend. Know that you are making a decision for yourself that is powerful.

Jeyifo has a two-part mission. The first part consists of helping women have their children killed, and the second part is persuading others that killing humans is a noble cause:

Destigmatizing abortion is a really critical component.

What Jeyifo doesn’t say is that destigmatizing human slaughter necessarily entails stigmatizing opposition to human slaughter. Leftists don’t really oppose stigmas, shaming, and judging as they claim they do. Rather, they just want to ensure that moral truths and the people who express them are judged, stigmatized, and shamed.

The morally repugnant Jeyifo who was encumbered in her quests to end her former children’s lives by travel obstacles argues,

I think about what it took for me to travel. … I make really clear to the callers that the difficulty you face in accessing an abortion has nothing to do with the morality of an abortion. It’s a systemic failure in this country. Abortion is health care.

For the umpteenth time, abortion ends the life of an innocent human being. That’s science. Killing innocent humans is not health care. And in no moral universe is the intentional ending of an innocent human life morally defensible. The participation of political leaders, medical professionals, and Big Business in this barbaric practice is a systemic failure in this country.

Anyone hell-bent on keeping human slaughter legal, anyone so ignorant as to believe the Founding Fathers embedded in the Constitution a “right” of mothers to have their children slaughtered lacks both knowledge and wisdom. And anyone who ardently supports and facilitates human slaughter is evil.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Pro-Human-Slaughter-Devotees-Help-Out-of-State-Abortion-Seekers.mp3

Alarm bells are ringing on the plans pro-abortion advocates are creating for the country if Roe v Wade is overturned. Fearing that medical abortions will be restricted or even eliminated in some states, Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocates have changed gears to push for more chemical abortions – what supporters call “self-managed abortions.” Planned Parenthood has even advocated mailing the necessary drugs to women without a medical professional ever seeing the patient in person. The dangers of these drugs and this plan are staggering.

Commonly referred to as either the abortion pill or RU-486, the chemical abortion consists of two drugs, mifepristone, and misoprostol. The first medication, mifepristone, disrupts production of progesterone, a hormone necessary for pregnancy. A few days later, the woman takes the second drug, misoprostol, causing contractions which expel the baby. Medical professionals, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, agree that using a chemical abortion past ten weeks of pregnancy is potentially dangerous to the mother and can cause significant side effects.

Obviously, the impact on the baby is designed to be devastating, but many women are unaware that they are also risking their own lives as well. The typical symptoms a woman might experience when terminating a pregnancy through a chemical abortion are heavy bleeding (similar to that of a natural miscarriage), severe pain lasting a few hours, cramping, nausea, weakness, fever, chills, vomiting, headache, diarrhea, and dizziness. These symptoms may last anywhere from two days to a few weeks and are not considered unusual following a “normal” chemical abortion. However, symptoms can become significantly worse when women unexpectedly suffer severe side effects from one or both of the drugs in the abortion pill.

Severe side effects can include prolonged heavy bleeding lasting weeks, incomplete abortions that require surgical intervention, infections, sepsis, and death. To say that these outcomes are serious is an understatement. According to the FDA, in 2018 there were 24 deaths of women who had taken mifepristone and misoprostol. Additionally, there were 274 hospitalizations and 100 reported infections. These are only the reported problems; how many other women faced severe issues, but their doctors or clinics did not report the problem? Now, Planned Parenthood wants to blindly distribute this poison to women without clearly determining how far along they are in their pregnancy or what underlying health conditions may exist. This plan is not healthcare; it is genocide.

There is, however, some good news. First, for women who have taken mifepristone to start a chemical abortion, a process called abortion pill reversal is successful in some cases. Some doctors will prescribe high doses of progesterone to stop the chemical abortion process. Abortion Pill Rescue Network, in affiliation with Heartbeat International, is a group that connects women to doctors who will prescribe lifesaving medication. The group claims that they have saved over 2,500 babies from chemical abortion.

Second, more life-affirming crisis pregnancy centers are being opened every day across the country. The largest groups operating life-affirming centers are Birthright International, Care Net, and Heartbeat International. Additionally, there are numerous smaller and independent groups operating lifesaving clinics. Not only do these clinics assist expectant mothers, but they also provide STD testing and post-abortive counseling.

Finally, we have hope in the Dodds v Jackson case which is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. If the Court reverses Roe v Wade, it will not end abortion, but instead will send the discussion back to the individual states. At that point, each state will have to create laws to regulate abortion, and we can ask our representatives to consider banning, or at least limiting access to, chemical abortions. States are divided, but it is likely that several states will significantly limit abortion.

Take ACTION: Regardless of the outcome, we must continue to fight to prevent abortion and help women and families facing a crisis pregnancy. If you are facing a crisis pregnancy and need help, please get in touch with one of the following hotlines:

Birthright International: 1-800-550-4900

Care Net: 1-877-791-5475 or click HERE.

Heartbeat International: 1-800-712-HELP or click HERE.

You can also search “abortion alternatives and clinics near me” to find a clinic within your region. Please note that many search engines will list abortion clinics first. Please ensure that the clinic you choose will support abortion alternatives.

If you have started the chemical abortion process and have changed your mind and want help to possibly reverse the effects, contact the following:

Abortion Pill Rescue Network/Heartbeat International: 877.558.0333 or click HERE.

If you have experienced the pain of abortion and need counseling, regardless of how long ago the abortion occurred, please call one of the hotlines or go to your nearest life-affirming crisis pregnancy center.

Pregnancy care comes at a cost and these lifesaving centers need our help and our financial support! As we begin a new year, please consider making a donation. Also, contact your representatives and ask them to restrict chemical abortions in the state and prevent abortion drugs from being distributed without a physical exam. Lastly, let us all pray that the Supreme Court makes a wise decision in the Dodds v Jackson case and that we can overturn Roe.

All life is precious to the LORD! He declares in His Word:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you.”
~Jeremiah 1:5a

When our state lawmaker convene the 103rd General Assembly on January 11th, Democrats may immediately push for a Constitutional Amendment on Abortion, hoping to permanently enshrine abortion as a legal right in Illinois.

The recent election revealed that abortion was a decisive topic, driving women and men alike to the polls.

However, despite statistics showing a relatively even split on the abortion issue, election results prove that Illinois is even more left-leaning than believed.

Illinois Senate Minority Leader-Elect John Curran (R-Lemont) admits in defeat that Illinois has all but constitutionalized abortion, being the most liberal state when it comes to abortion legislation.

But Democrat legislators still claim abortion freedoms are insecure. Illinois House Speaker, Chris Welch (D-Westchester), expresses his concern: “Right now, we’re a single Legislature or a single Supreme Court away from losing [abortion] rights.”

The Democrats’ solution? A state constitutional amendment securely guaranteeing abortion rights.

Sarah Resnick, leader of prominent -pro-choice organization Personal PAC says, “The people of this country want choice to be protected and codified, and they don’t want it to be dismantled. Codifying on a constitutional level makes sense.”

This blue wave and push to constitutionalize abortion recognizes, ironically, that abortion has and will continue to be a ravaging concern for Christians.

Democrats, despite their landslide victory in Illinois this election season, sense opposition and pressure over abortion. Personal PAC’s website announces, “The Enemies of Choice will never stop. And neither will we.” A bold proclamation made from trembling knees.

Pro-choice organizations are uncomfortable and insecure because Christians are providing real pushback. From gargantuan legal battles like Roe V. Wade to trifles like evangelism, their idol–the scourge of abortion–is being attacked on all sides. The pagan’s consequent squirming signifies Christianity’s success. But it is apparent: Christians cannot grow lax. As John Owen once said,

“There is not a day in our lives in which sin does not either defeat us or is defeated, prevails over us or is prevailed over.”

Every day Christians must take up their swords, armor, cross and combat the sin of abortion. It is still an active battlefield, with pro-choice activists vowing to fight back. And so we begin the new year.

Nothing exposes the ignorance and evil of “progressivism” quite like discussions of the rights of the most vulnerable among us.

Nothing exposes the hollowness of leftist claims to care about social justice, the poor, and the weak like their eagerness to keep the slaughter of humans in the womb legal.

Nothing exposes the loathing of leftists for those deemed “other” by the powerful than their seething rage at the possibility they may lose the right to kill those they “other.” Leftists view humans with defects and humans created by the criminal acts of their fathers as undeserving of existence. Leftist “othering” of imperfect humans and humans conceived through evil acts is so extreme that they shriek apoplectically at the claim that even these tiny, innocent humans are part of the human family.

Adam Serwer writing for the Atlantic described the possibility of Roe being overturned as “stripping half the country’s population of a fundamental constitutional right.” He didn’t expend a single word to try to prove that killing one’s unborn baby is a constitutional right. He didn’t point to where that purported right is found in the Constitution. He didn’t refute the numerous claims from liberal constitutional scholars who assert that no such right can be found in the Constitution.

(As an aside, hasn’t Serwer heard the news from feminists that men are not entitled to speak on the issue of abortion—not even when their own children are being killed?)

In America Magazine, Illinois’ morally repugnant and theologically ignorant U.S. Senator Dick Durbin whined like a narcissistic teen that “it is fundamentally unfair” that he is denied Communion in the Springfield diocese, a decision that he calls “not a happy experience.”

He also believes this about Communion:

I think the standard for receiving Communion is a well-formed conscience, and where you come down as a result of that. And that is personal to the individual standing at the rail. … In the end it is a personal decision to stand at that rail, and I think with very few exceptions, Communion is offered to anybody if the person believes that they are worthy of it.

Really? The Catholic Church has an obligation to serve the Lord’s Supper to anyone who finds himself or herself “worthy of it”? And that obligation applies even to Catholics who intentionally use their voices and power to promote sin as good in direct violation of Catholic teaching?

Clearly, Durbin thinks he’s worthy of Communion despite the fact that he supports the legal right to slaughter humans in the womb from conception to birth for any or no reason.

Durbin goes on to point out what he views as hypocrisy by Catholic leaders:

[H]ere we have Trump in the closing days of his presidency executing more people on federal death row than any time in modern memory, just right and left, and we couldn’t stop it, the courts couldn’t stop it. …  And to think that these same Catholic leaders didn’t express horror at that outcome, or at least as much as they should have from my point of view, is troubling.

Point of clarification from America Magazine:

[The Trump administration carried out 13 executions over its last seven months in office—five in its last month. …]

In Durbin’s moral blindness, he believes that thirteen executions of adults found guilty of serious crimes warrant expressions of horror from Catholic leaders. He believes five executions of criminals in one month are horrific. Meanwhile, 1,700 abortions per day in the United States warrant approval and legal sanction—in Durbin’s view. That is 1,700 innocent human lives snuffed out every day because their mothers don’t want them to live.

No worries though because Durbin assures his constituents that his faith “means a lot to me”:

My faith has been a big part of my life and I’ve thought about it a lot because I have been forced to.

Apparently, thinking “a lot” about his faith is about all Durbin’s done with it. And apparently, all that thinking was done under duress. No voluntary thinking about his faith. No siree.

In service of proving themselves singularly committed to compassion for the weak and oppressed, leftists are fond of redefining and revising. So, here’s an idea on how Planned Parenthood and other cheerleaders for calculated carnage should revise the conclusion of Emma Lazarus’ famous poem “The New Colossus” to suit their mission:

Give me your flawed, your poor
Your parasites with no right to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Bring your unwanted, tempest-tost to me,
I lift the lamp beside the cold steel door.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Fools-and-Hypocrites-Defend-Abortion.mp3

The fact that “progressives” in their opposition to constitutional textualists/originalists—whom leftists know approach the U.S. Constitution with more rigorous fidelity than do “progressive” Justices—focus almost exclusively on the possibility that Roe v. Wade may be overturned would seem a tacit admission that there exists no constitutional right of women to have their intrauterine offspring slaughtered. The infamous Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block, and leftists are more distraught over the possible decapitation of Roe than they are over the actual decapitations of tiny humans.

In their frenzied fear that human slaughter may be one day be illegal, leftists fume irrationally that the overturn of Roe threatens the constitutional right of stronger, more developed, and powerful humans (i.e., oppressors) to order the killings of weaker, imperfect, unwanted humans (i.e., the oppressed). Well, here’s some food for thought about Roe v. Wade from “progressives” who support the legal right of women to choose to have more vulnerable humans killed—quotes that shrieking feminists may find wholly unpalatable:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor).

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun).

• What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed” (Edward Lazarus).

• “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum—will tell you it is basically indefensible” (Edward Lazarus).

• “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer).

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be…. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking” (John Hart Ely, clerk for Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren).

• Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” (Benjamin Wittes, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution).

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy…. As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is. If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe, with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers…. “[Roe] is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument…. Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist).

• “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy) …. [C]lear governing constitutional principles… are not present” (Alan Dershowitz, former Harvard Law School professor).

• “In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people…. Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor, former clerk to Judge Abner Mikva).

• “Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision…. Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited [sic] to the protection of the 14th Amendment…. By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor).

• “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor).

Roe v. Wade, my friends, is the SCOTUS decision that “progressives” argue absolute fidelity to precedent demands Justices uphold. If they think “lousy,” “indefensible,” “barely coherent,” unintelligible, a-constitutional non-reasoning must be honored in slavish service to the political end of allowing feticide, I hate to imagine what they would have thought about revisiting Dred Scott.

Written by Frederick W. Claybrook, Jr. 

The significance of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case cannot be overstated. Pro-life citizens across the nation were praying fervently for the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court as they heard oral arguments Wednesday morning.

The law at the center of this case is Mississippi’s late-term abortion ban for pre-born babies 15 weeks gestation and older. Many experts believe that the Court may overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at least in part, returning the issue of abortion back to the states.

Oral arguments went much as one would expect. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and, to a lesser extent, Elena Kagan, all made clear that they thought stare decisis should rule the day because otherwise it would look like the Court caved to public opinion. There was also some talk about reliance interests built up over 50 years.

Chief Justice John Roberts cast doubt on how a viability rule makes sense in light of the interests supposed to be furthered for women, i.e., making her own decisions and her circumstances. He pointed out more than once that the only issue they granted cert on was whether to continue to adhere to the viability rule and whether a 15-week line could pass constitutional muster, so he might be angling for a middle ground of striking down the viability rule but not totally discarding the undue burden standard of Casey.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett didn’t seem to be following suit, though. Instead, Kavanaugh pointed out that in some of what are now considered the Court’s most important decisions, the Court overruled prior precedent. He seemed to stake out a position that the Court should be “scrupulously neutral” on this issue and leave it to state and federal legislatures. He said that the interests of the mother wanting to abort and of the fetus in living were irreconcilable, which makes this matter so hard and counsels for the Court to stay out of it.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Barrett raised some interesting questions about the purported interests of women on which Roe and Casey based their decisions. Barrett pressed on why laws that allow women to hand over their infants shortly after delivery, thereby terminating all parental responsibilities, do not eliminate talk in the decisions about women controlling their lives.

Thomas pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld a state prosecution for abuse of a pregnant mother for ingesting controlled substances and harming her child. He never got a straight answer to why, if the state could do that if the ingestion was post-viability, it could not also do it if it was pre-viability or whether the Roe/Casey viability line would call for a different result because, if a woman can kill her child pre-viability, why can’t she abuse it.

Near the end of the clinic’s counsel’s argument, she said the common law provided a right to abort early in the pregnancy at the time the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The U.S. Solicitor General in her argument made a similar statement. Justice Samuel Alito jumped on appellee’s counsel, saying that the American Historical Association’s brief admitted that many states prohibited abortion at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, so how could it be considered a fundamental right. He didn’t mention Joseph Dellapenna’s brief, which obliterates these claims about the common law allowing abortion, but it seemed as if Alito was up on the common-law issue. (It is shameful, though, that counsel continue to spout these “myths,” also known as lies, about the common law.)

No direct questions were asked about whether an unborn child is covered by the due process and equal protection guarantees for “any person,” but Mississippi’s counsel, especially in his rebuttal, spoke of the many lives killed on account of Roe and Casey, although his overriding argument was that the matter should be left to the states.

The audio recording of the arguments is available HERE, and the transcript is available HERE.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation on Wednesday, December 1st. This important case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Center.

Mississippi Attorney General Lynne Fitch headed up the pro-life position. Attorneys had 30 minutes to argue their points. This landmark case provides an opportunity to present medical evidence on the development and viability of the unborn child that was not available in 1973 and has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Over 100 amicus briefs have been filed from both sides, including one on behalf of Illinois Family Institute. These briefs are read by the Justices prior to oral arguments and have the potential to touch their hearts on the importance of their decision.

In an October article for First Things, Princeton University law professor Robert P. George predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will–and should–decide that there is no constitutional right to elective abortions:

As I write—as you read—unborn children are being slain. As a practical matter, Roe and Casey must be reversed before any of these children can enjoy the full protection of the law. Abortion will not end overnight. Some states will continue to permit the procedure until the Court ­acknowledges that the unborn possess the right to life. Even women who live in states that prohibit the procedure will be free to cross state lines. But we know that even modest obstacles save lives. The denial of federal funding for elective abortions is estimated to save some sixty thousand unborn children each year. So let us be frank. There is a cost to delay, and that cost comes in innocent lives.

PRAYER ALERT

Please pray fervently today as the nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court hear and consider the arguments regarding significant abortion restrictions in Mississippi. Pray that God would touch the hearts of the Justices, their clerks, and the media covering the case. As the debate rages, pray too that eyes and ears would be opened to the abortion industry’s barbaric practices.

We urge you to please fast and pray today:

• Pray that an honest fear of God, His justice, and Spirit of wisdom would settle upon the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Pray that God would forgive His people for allowing innocent blood to fill our land. Deuteronomy 19:10; Deuteronomy 21:8-9

• Pray that God would convict us as a nation for allowing the savage practice of human abortion to continue for nearly five decades. May God fill our hearts with repentance so that we would seek His forgiveness and cry out to Him for mercy. Lamentations 3:22-23

• Pray for those on the pro-life legal team and for Mississippi Attorney General Lynne Fitch. Pray that the arguments she presents will turn the hearts of the Justices and compel them to vote favorably on the case before them today. Proverbs 21:1

• Pray that the Justices choose to protect the millions of innocent unborn lives that are put in jeopardy by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

• Pray that the arguments of abortion proponents would fall flat before the Court.

• Pray that God would confuse the pro-abortion side and confound their words during arguments. Psalm 55:9

• Pray that the media would be honest in their reporting of the facts of this case and the science of human life.

• Pray that our friends, family members, and neighbors would see through the lies and emotional rhetoric used by abortion cheerleaders.

(A decision on this case is not expect to be issued until June, 2022.)

Read MORE:

Three Things You Need to Know About the Dobbs Case and the Future of the Pro-Life Movement

7 Things to Know About the Dobbs Abortion Case Now Before the U.S. Supreme Court

10 Things You Can Do to Defend the Unborn Ahead of Dobbs

U.S. Supreme Court Has Its Best Chance in Decades to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Protect Unborn Children

‘History Is Clearly on the Pro-Life Side’: ADF Counsel Erin Hawley Breaks Down Upcoming Supreme Court Abortion Case

Roe v Wade: Unconstitutional and Unjust

Last Friday, by a vote of 218 to 211, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a radical pro-abortion bill that would essentially codify Roe v. Wade. The so-called “Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021” (H.R. 3755) would create an absolute right to abortion in federal law, superseding all state laws. The vote fell along party lines, with only one Democrat—U.S. Representatives Henry Cuellar (D-TX)—voting against the bill.

The dangers of this extreme pro-abortion bill cannot be overstated. Contrary to its name, this bill endangers women in innumerable ways. It removes countless state restrictions and limits on abortion, allowing for abortion up to the point of birth so long as one “health care provider” determines that the “continuation of pregnancy would pose a risk” to the mother’s life or “health.” The definition of “health care provider” in the bill is extremely broad and includes certified nurse-midwives, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.

Moreover, in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Doe v. Bolton, a companion case to Roe, “health” in the context of abortion is extremely broad and can include physical, emotional, psychological, and familial conditions, including the woman’s age.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, Tammy Duckworth and Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to ask them to oppose H.R. 3755 should it come up for a vote.

Co-sponsors of H.R. 3755 from Illinois include: U.S. Representatives Robin Kelly (D-Chicago), Jan Schakowsky (D-Evanston), Bobby Rush (D-Chicago), Sean Casten (D-Wheaton), Danny Davis (D-Chicago), Bill Foster (D-Joliet), Chuy Garcia (D-Chicago), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Schaumburg), Marie Newman (D-Chicago), Brad Schneider (D-Lincolshire), Lauren Underwood (D-Crystal Lake), Mike Quigley (D-Oak Park) and Cheri Bustos (D-Moline).

Background

The Women’s Health Protection Act would strike down state level pro-life protections and prevent state legislatures from taking action regarding abortion. Such an example is Illinois’ Parental Notice of Abortion law.  The bill also targets funding for abortions by removing pro-life protections such as the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal taxpayer dollars from supporting abortion, and the Weldon Amendment, which prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to discriminate on the basis of a health care entity’s refusal to provide, pay for, or refer women for abortion.

Thankfully, as the National Review reported, the bill is unlikely to receive the necessary votes to pass the U.S. Senate. The Senate is currently made up of 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 2 Independents, and 60 votes are required to end a filibuster. Even some “pro-choice” Republican senators have expressed hesitation about the bill, such as U.S. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who commented that “parts of the bill are too ‘extreme’ for her,” and that “the bill would ‘severely weaken’ conscience rights by denying protections afforded by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

We think it’s important to make sure that not only our two U.S. Senators know what we think about this legislation, though they be pro-choice, but we also want to put on notice the Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, Mitch McConnell.

Moreover, IFI urges you to pray for all of our federal lawmakers and then speak out to condemn the wickedness of abortion and those sponsoring the so-called “Woman’s Health Protection Act.”

For those who have been enjoying the waning days of summer away from news and social media, basking maskless by a refreshing body of water or hiking in a cool forest with a face as naked as a newborn babe’s, here’s what set ablaze the perpetually burning neurons of leftists: Texas banned all abortions performed on small humans whose hearts are beating and made anyone who facilitates the illegal killing of humans with beating hearts open to litigation. Sounds reasonable to me, but then again, I’ve never been a fan of killing defenseless humans who have committed no crime.

Following Texas’ prohibition of human slaughter after the first six weeks of life, the left lost what’s left of their minds.

With their feticidal minds unhinged at the prospect of mothers not being free to hire hitmen who identify as “physicians” to off their offspring, leftists proved again why they’re not known for skill in the use of evidence, sound analogical thinking, respect for science, respect for human rights, coherence, consistency, or morality.

Let’s take a cursory look at the darn things cultural regressives are muttering, sputtering, and tweeting:

Joe Biden, the self-identifying Catholic who claims his “avocation” is theology, recently said,

I respect people who … don’t support Roe v. Wade. I respect their views. I respect … those who believe life begins at the moment of conception and all. I respect that. Don’t agree, but I respect that.

But wait, in 2015 Biden said,

I’m prepared to accept that at the moment of conception there’s human life and being, but I’m not prepared to say that to other God-fearing, non-God-fearing people that have a different view.

So, which is it? Does he believe that at the moment of conception a new human life comes into existence or does he not? If not, what new science convinced him between age 72 and 78 that the union of human egg and sperm no longer marks the beginning of the life of a new human being?

(As an aside, why can’t leftists who claim to believe that women can be born in men’s bodies and that men can menstruate and give birth be like Biden and respect the views of God-fearing and non-God-fearing people who disagree?)

Disgraceful CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, brother of disgraced former governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, tried to suggest that 6-week-old human fetuses don’t have heartbeats because they don’t have hearts. The Mayo Clinic dares to dissent:

Growth is rapid this week [sixth week]. Just four weeks after conception, the neural tube along your baby’s back is closing. The baby’s brain and spinal cord will develop from the neural tube. The heart and other organs also are starting to form and the heart begins to beat.

Please note, the Mayo Clinic refers to the baby as a “baby.”

CNN’s Joy Reid fretted that the Texas law signals the Handmaid’s Tale is coming to America—you know, the story of fertile breeding women being forced to have sex with ruling elite men while their wives watch. Reid’s guest, failed presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, nodding in agreement, fretted about the law’s impact on the “most vulnerable among us”:

This law is about bearing down on the most vulnerable among us. It’s bearing down on the woman, or the transperson, or the nonbinary who’s workin’ three jobs.

Warren views pregnant “transpersons” who are workin’ three jobs as more vulnerable than the babies whom they seek to kill.

Bette Midler tweeted,

I suggest that all women refuse to have sex with men until they are guaranteed the right to choose by Congress.

Midler forgot to specify the direct object of the transitive verb “choose.” To be clear, she means the right to choose to have incipient human life killed.

I completely agree with Midler that if a woman plans to chemically starve her baby fetus or have her fetus dismembered as her back-up contraception plan, it’s best she not have sex.

Millionaire leftist co-founders of the ridesharing company Lyft, Logan Green and John Zimmer, have gone all out in support of killing tiny humans:

Lyft is donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood to help ensure that transportation is never a barrier to healthcare access.

Killing humans is not “healthcare” no matter how many times leftists use this Newspeakian euphemism. Anyone who cares about the health of womb-dwellers ought not use Lyft.

And any leftist who believes that practices that have a “disparate impact” on persons of color are racist practices should know that black babies are killed in utero at much higher rates than are white babies:

Black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer. … In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.

The millions of dollars donated by racists Green and Zimmer are going to facilitate the racist practices of Planned Parenthood.

The ever-snippy White House spokesperson Jen Psaki scolded a reporter for asking about how Biden reconciles his Catholic faith with his support for human slaughter. Psaki’s retort was revelatory in that it demonstrated how un-woke she is.

Without even asking for the reporter’s pronouns, Psaki just assumed the reporter was a man, presumably because he looks like a man and sounds like a man. Psaki asserted presumptuously that the reporter has never been pregnant. How does she know? Doesn’t Psaki know that in the woke playbook, some women have men’s bodies, and some men have women’s bodies and can get pregnant? I guess Psaki is an intolerant, hateful, ignorant bigot.

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin claimed that the refusal of the U.S. Supreme Court to block the Texas law constitutes “a real blow against the U.S. Supreme Court’s institutional reputation.”  It’s strange to hear Toobin, who pleasured himself on a work Zoom call, express concern over “reputation.” But then again, Toobin has a vested interest in keeping abortion legal: He pressured a former paramour with whom he had had an extramarital affair to abort their now 12-year-old son. Toobin may be planning for his future “needs.”

Toobin also described Roe v. Wade as the “second most famous opinion of the last 100 years.” He should have said “most infamous opinion of the last 150 years.” Here’s what liberal legal scholars and pundits have said about the infamous Roe v. Wade opinion:

• “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” (Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor)

• “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.” (Edward Lazarus, former clerk to SCOTUS Justice Harry Blackmun)

• “Blackmun’s [U.S. Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” (William Saletan, Slate magazine writer)

• Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” (John Hart Ely, former law professor at Yale, Harvard, and Stanford universities)

• “[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision—the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution—strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous.” (Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist)

• “[T]he finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” (Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School professor)

• “Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” (Michael Kinsley, attorney, political journalist).

• As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether” (Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania Law School professor)

• “Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” (Archibald Cox, JFK’s Solicitor General, former Harvard Law School professor)

One law professor who has no need of constitutional grounding for abortion is UC Irvine law professor and cheerleader for legalized human slaughter, Michele Goodwin. Goodwin is a long-time and influential advocate of the legal right to kill the preborn. She and co-author Erwin Chemerinsky set forth their goals in a 2017 paper titled, “Abortion: a Woman’s Private Choice”:

We begin by justifying the protection of rights not found in the text of the Constitution. … Foremost among these rights is control over one’s body and over one’s reproduction. … Finally in Part III we discuss what it would mean for abortion to be regarded as a private choice. In this Part, we identify three implications: a) restoring strict scrutiny to examining laws regulating abortions, which would mean that the government must be neutral between childbirth and abortion; b) preventing the government from denying funding for abortions when it pays for childbirth; and c) invalidating the countless types of restrictions on abortion. (emphasis added)

Goodwin rightly condemns the “notorious eugenics period in the United States,” in which allegedly defective preborn babies were forcibly killed by the government. Goodwin fails, however, to acknowledge the difference between the government mandating that a doctor perform a surgical procedure on the body of a woman without her consent and the government prohibiting a doctor from dismembering or in other ways destroying the body of a human fetus without his or her consent.

Goodwin also believes the Texas bill to preserve human life is analogous to the Fugitive Slave Act. She believes that the grotesque law that incentivized citizens to help send humans into bondage is analogous to a law that incentivizes citizens to help prevent the slaughter of humans. Some might counter that the Texas law is more akin to laws that offer rewards for the capture of killers than it is to the Fugitive Slave Act.

Now that leftists have lost control of the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re stomping their angry feet and demanding the Court be jampacked with leftists, something conservatives have not called for to repair the grievous harm done by seven Justices in 1973. Neither the Constitution nor the will of the people matters to “progressives.”

There is no constitutional or moral right to have humans killed because of their dependency status, location, absence of self-consciousness, lack of full development, disabilities, anticipated future, maternal inconvenience, insufficient maternal finances, or crimes of their fathers. A civilized, compassionate, moral, and just society does not find the final solution to poverty, disease, disability, or any other form of human suffering in the killing of others. And in the Constitution, there is no free-floating absolute right to privacy in which humans can do anything they feel like doing to other human beings. Leftist U.S. Supreme Court Justices invented such a “right” out of whole blood-stained cloth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Progressives-Say-the-Darndest-Things-About-Killing-Tiny-Humans.mp3