Tag Archives: Roe vs. Wade

Alex Newman: Southern Baptists: Abolish Abortion Now, Nullify Roe vs. Wade 4 (1)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Alex Newman

Abortion is murder and represents a “crime against humanity,” so it must be immediately re-criminalized and abolished without any exceptions, according to a resolution approved earlier this month by the powerful Southern Baptist Convention (SBC).

The new measure, which rejected the “incremental approach” to stopping the slaughter of the unborn favored by many “pro-life” activists, also called on Christians and governments to repent for their complicity in the ongoing atrocities.

The move even calls for state nullification if needed. And it has the potential to supercharge the movement to stop the massacre of pre-born children taking place in America.

The SBC has been issuing tepid resolutions against abortion since before the U.S. Supreme Court even authored its opinion in Roe v. Wade. That decision purporting to overturn all state laws banning the murder of unborn babies has facilitated the slaughter of some 60 million innocent human beings so far.

But the latest measure demanding “the immediate abolition of abortion without exception or compromise” by the SBC represents the most strident language yet from America’s largest Protestant Christian denomination. The SBC includes about 50,000 churches with some 15 million members.

Despite the lack of attention from the establishment press, the resolution is already sending shock-waves through the church. Many analysts believe it represents a turning point in the battle to stop abortion.

“The bloody stain that comes from the more than sixty million babies who have been legally put to death belongs in part to Southern Baptists for their ethical failures to speak clearly, prophetically and consistently on the sanctity of the life of preborn humans,” explained Pastor Tom Ascol of Founders Ministry, one of the key forces behind the measure, in a post about it on his website.

“It is time for Southern Baptists to repent of their complicity in searing the conscience of a nation that has yet to cease the slaughter of unborn innocents,” he added.

According to numerous scripture verses cited in the resolution, all human beings are “created in God’s image” from the moment of fertilization. That means, as God’s image-bearers, each baby in the womb is equal in value to God, regardless of the baby’s age, ethnicity, size, gender, and so on.

As such, murdering any preborn baby “is a sin, violating both the natural law of retributive justice as set forth in the Noahic covenant, as well as the sixth commandment forbidding murder.” It is also an “assault on God’s image” and an effort to “usurp God’s sovereignty as Creator,” the resolution declares.

Again citing the Bible, the resolution goes on to argue that all human life is a “sacred gift,” and that God’s law is supreme over human life and human law. Pointing to Proverbs 24:11-12 commanding Christians to “rescue those who are being taken away to death,” as well as the fact that God will hold Christians responsible for failing to do something, the Southern Baptists said there is no choice but to get involved.

“God establishes all governing authorities as His avenging servants to carry out His wrath on the evildoer,” the resolution continues, noting that government authorities have an obligation to judge justly when punishing evil.

The document, approved on June 16 in Nashville at the SBC’s annual meeting, also brought in the U.S. Constitution. “In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States rendered an iniquitous decision on Roe v. Wade, and in doing so deprived the innocent of their rights, and usurped God, who sovereignly ordained their authority,” the SBC said.

In its decision, “the Supreme Court of the United States subverted the U.S. Constitution namely, the Preamble, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments without any legal authority (Article 6, Clause 2 ‘Supremacy Clause’),” the resolution continued, pointing to the fact that only constitutional laws are permissible and supreme over state laws.

In other words, government authorities at all levels have a duty under the laws of God and under the U.S. Constitution to protect unborn babies. That means, if necessary, state and local governments have a duty to intervene, even if they have to ignore and nullify illegitimate federal usurpations such as Roe v. Wade.

Indeed, governing authorities have not just a constitutional obligation to act, but “a duty before God” to uphold justice by protecting the unborn, regardless of what the high court says in its opinions.

In what will sound bizarre to some seeking to protect unborn babies, the measure goes on to criticize the pro-life movement and its efforts.

“Over the past 48 years with 60+ million abortions, traditional Pro-life laws, though well intended, have not established equal protection and justice for the preborn, but on the contrary, appallingly have established incremental, regulatory guidelines for when, where, why, and how to obtain legal abortion of innocent preborn children, thereby legally sanctioning abortion,” the measure states, calling for a new approach often dubbed “abolition” by proponents.

By approving the measure, the SBC resolved to “state unequivocally that abortion is murder.”

They also agreed to “reject any position that allows for any exceptions to the legal protection of our preborn neighbors, compromises God’s holy standard of justice, or promotes any God-hating partiality.”

Indeed, SBC messengers go on to repent of any complicity they may have had in tolerating exceptions that legitimize or regulate the murder of the unborn.

As part of the resolution, the SBC’s messengers, who represent SBC churches nationwide, vowed not to embrace any incremental approach to saving babies. Rather, abortion must be looked upon as murder, always, starting now, and appropriately punished by government.

“As Southern Baptists we will engage, with God’s help, in establishing equal justice and protection for the preborn according to the authority of God’s Word as well as local and federal law,” the measure declared, calling on pastors and leaders to get involved in abolishing abortion immediately.

“Because abolishing abortion is a Great Commission issue, we must call upon governing authorities at all levels to repent and ‘obey everything that [Christ] has commanded,’ exhorting them to bear fruit in keeping with repentance by faithfully executing their responsibilities as God’s servants of justice, and working with all urgency to enact legislation using the full weight of their office to interpose on behalf of the preborn, abolishing abortion immediately, without exception or compromise,” the resolution concluded.

The language in the historic SBC resolution goes beyond what other Protestant denominations and even the Catholic Church have taught in America. Indeed, it marks a turning point in the battle against abortion when it comes to tactics and rhetoric.

After almost 50 years of the “pro-life” movement accomplishing little as babies continued to be butchered, advocates of “abolition” have argued that new strategies and a biblical approach to the issue must be used.

One key element of the emerging abolition movement relies on Reformation-era biblical theological thinking. Especially relevant is the “Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrates,” which calls on “lesser magistrates” — governors and sheriffs in America, for example — to interpose on behalf of their constituents to protect them from evil decrees of higher magistrates. For instance, a state legislature and governor could interpose on behalf of unborn babies in the state by arresting and prosecuting those involved in murdering babies.

Also key in America are constitutional arguments. Under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has limited powers — something the 10th Amendment makes clear when it expressly reserves all powers not delegated to the feds for the states and the people. As such, Founding Fathers including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson argued that states have a duty to nullify unconstitutional actions by the federal government.

Dozens of states have already nullified federal statutes and international treaties purporting to prohibit marijuana. Nullification of the Supreme Court opinion pretending to overturn state murder laws would be just as effective.

The state of Oklahoma has been at the forefront of the effort to nullify Roe v. Wade. Numerous abolition bills have been introduced, though none have been signed into law yet.

However, with the new SBC resolution on abolishing abortion, the tide may finally be turning, first in the Southern United States, and eventually nationwide.

NA: https://thenewamerican.com/southern-baptists-abolish-abortion-now-nullify-roe-v-wade/

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU or on Facebook

Jesse Lee Peterson: END THE HOLOCAUST ON THE UNBORN 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Jesse Lee Peterson blasts ‘hissy fit’ of false black leaders, liberal women

by Jesse Lee Peterson

The 46-year holocaust targeting unborn children has taken a toll of over 60 million babies’ lives. Untold numbers of distraught fathers and mothers are tortured by the grief and trauma at their children’s violent death. Some never recover from the guilt and shame for taking part in this horror, having been lied to by radical organizations like Planned Parenthood.

These crimes against humanity are endorsed by the Democratic Party, and abetted by RINO Republicans who pay lip service but cower to political correctness. Cowardly men stand aside as radical feminists promote death under the pretense that they care about “women’s health,” the “woman’s body” and the “woman’s choice.” In reality, these selfish, evil people only care about money, convenience, and their own egotistical ideology of hate. Liberals hate white men and they hate children. While they pretend to care about “people of color” and women, they hate them as well, exploiting their weakness for political gain.

Barack Obama was the first feminist president, and he loved abortion. He voted multiple times as a U.S. Senator to allow a child born alive after a botched abortion to die on the medical table. The first thing he did as president was sign an executive order to fund abortions overseas. His socialist “Obamacare” also reportedly funded abortions, according to the Government Accountability Office.

(Obama was also the most anti-black president we’ve ever had, whose policies and statements subsidized and encouraged black self-destruction. He exacerbated the violence in the ghettos with increased black-on-black murders by undermining law enforcement and stoking anti-police hatred. He validated the radical hate group Black Lives Matter – a group that’s brought more death, destruction and misery to the black community than the KKK. Obama brought these radicals to the White House, along with the evil, exploitative Al Sharpton. Barack Obama hates black Americans, but in their darkness most blacks supported him to their own destruction.)

Black women and children suffer from an utter lack of men in their so-called homes and communities. According to CDC numbers analyzed by the Center for Immigration studies, 77 percent of native-born black mothers had children out of wedlock in 2015. Blacks, most of whom pretend to be Christians, have the highest percentage of unwed births. The fathers are weak and absent, the mothers angry and violent, and the children – those who survive the womb – are out of control.

In their spiritual blindness, blacks also lead the way in abortions. According to the radical pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, blacks, who were 14 percent of the population, made up 28 percent of abortions nationwide in 2014. Their share of total abortions was twice their share of the population. It’s said that blacks abort more than a third of their pregnancies – and well over half of pregnancies in cities like New York in recent years. Since 1973’s Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, it’s estimated that more than 20 million black babies have been killed by abortion.

Order Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson’s book, “The Antidote: Healing America from the Poison of Hate, Blame, and Victimhood.”

Democrats thrive on the immorality and irresponsibility of the people, and especially black people. They love for people to suffer from “poverty” and violence, and they love to stoke black anger, women’s anger, Hispanic anger. They push the attack on white men, and rejoice when young men lash out and commit mass shootings. Democrats are about control, but they cannot control a moral people. Democrats have to make people angry and immoral in order to assume power over them. So they fight for the “right” to destroy lives and present slavery to sin as “freedom” to “choose.”

But thank God for the South, and “Sweet Home Alabama”! This past week Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law a bill that would make murder of the unborn a felony. Thankfully, Alabama Republicans made no exceptions to allow killing of children conceived in rape or incest, but only to save the life of the mother.

It’s going to take logical men, especially white men, standing up with courage to make logical decisions to finally end this mass murder. Stand up to the wicked wolves in sheep’s clothing who call themselves “pro-choice,” and stop stepping aside as though this is only a “women’s issue.” Men should lead this fight, not shrink back and allow women to take over – which destroyed the black community.

False black leaders and liberal women are having a hissy fit about the Alabama law. Other states are passing laws attacking the rampant scourge of abortion. The anti-American organization ACLU is preparing a court battle against the law, likely to reach the Supreme Court.

The only way to win this spiritual battle is for men to wake up, overcome fear and anger, return to God and become perfect. Men should overcome their weakness toward women by forgiving their mothers, returning to their fathers, and thereby coming alive spiritually. Pray without ceasing, know thyself and repent. Then you can have the right relationship with women, stop having sex outside marriage, and lead with authority as Christ leads you. If men set the example, and speak out against evil, we can end the holocaust on the unborn.

WND: https://www.wnd.com/2019/05/end-the-holocaust-on-the-unborn/

Read Jesse Lee Peterson’s Biography

Bill Lockwood: King Cuomo of NY: Shades of Herod! 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

by Bill Lockwood

Shockingly, the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, recently signed into law measures to expand abortion rights across the state. Mislabeled the Reproductive Health Act, the state of New York wanted to put protective barriers around Roe v Wade which Democrats feared could be overturned by a more conservative Supreme Court under Donald Trump. Cuomo stated: “With the signing of this bill, we are sending a clear message that whatever happens in Washington, women in New York will always have the fundamental right to control their own body.”

The bill allows women to abort their babies up to the very moment of birth, even as they prepare for delivery. This grotesque ignoring of the value of children’s lives by abortion—properly called infanticide—is alarming and should serve as a wake-up call to all Americans as to the wicked direction of leftist politics.

Herod the Great, the unusually cruel king of Judea who served under the auspices of Emperor Augustus at the time of our Lord’s birth, was in the last years of his reign when he learned that “the King of the Jews” was to be born in Bethlehem. In an effort to exterminate Jesus Christ, the newborn king, Herod ruthlessly slaughtered all of the babies of Bethlehem from two years old and younger (Matt. 2:16). Cuomo is cut out of the same cloth.

What’s next? Allowing the murder of children up to two years old? New York’s reasoning is that their bill involves the Reproductive Health of a woman. What about her Psychological Health? Here is how two Italian utilitarian professors argued for infanticide-even after birth-due to a woman’s psychological health.

However, having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health

of the woman or for her already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself.

Giubilini & Minerva

The above statement was published in a prestigious online Journal of Medical Ethics several years ago. If that is not an argument for infanticide, it would be difficult to determine what would constitute one. It was co-authored by Alberto Giubilini of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia and Francesca Minerva of the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. Their position is that killing of a newborn baby is “ethically permissible” in all circumstances where abortion would be.

To soften our minds to this horrific suggestion, they tell us that the unborn child as well as the newborn is “only a potential person.” Further, feeling that “infanticide” is too strong a term, they therefore “propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion.’” This emphasizes “that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than a child.” In other words, quit thinking in human terms like “child” or “baby.”

The “circumstances” which would “ethically” allow “abortion” include such considerations as when the “well-being of the family” is at risk. And then, almost unbelievably, the professors tell us that “The best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice…”

Biubilini & Minerva’s reasoning is simply an extension of the justification for Cuomo’s abortion bill. Let New Yorkers or any pro-choice person give a coherent answer as to the conceptual difference between a woman’s reproductive health and her psychological health. This cannot be done precisely because abortion itself is infanticide: the killing of innocent God-given life.

Once a society begins wickedly exterminating its unborn children (America has murdered more than 1 million babies a year since 1973—financed in large part by taxpayer-funded Planned Parenthood) a hardening of the conscience begins that inevitably leads to open Herodian-style infanticide. New York proudly leads the way downward.

One might ask the professors, or the Governor, who sets himself forth as some great one on this issue, just how long after birth might a baby be murdered? The professors are not certain on this point. That will have to be settled by “neurologists and psychologists” who advise the “king.” And that advice will be skewed depending upon the interest of the crown.

Tom DeWeese: Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights? 0 (0)

Posted on by Leave a comment

Will Brett Kavanaugh Stand for Property Rights?-“The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell.”

by Tom DeWeese

There’s lots of talk about where Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh stands on the Roe v Wade abortion decision and if he would vote to rescind it. There is another very controversial Supreme Court decision made just few years ago, supported by the Anthony Kennedy, the justice he seeks to replace. That is the Kelo decision that basically obliterated private property rights in America. So, where does Brett Kananaugh stand on protection of private property rights? With Kennedy or the Constitution?

In 2005, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down an opinion that shocked the nation. It was the case of Susette Kelo, et al. v City of New London, Connecticut, et al. The issue: “Does the government taking of property from one private owner to give to another private entity for economic development constitutes a permissible ‘public use’ under the Fifth Amendment?”

In 2000, the city of New London saw a chance to rake in big bucks through tax revenues for a new downtown development project that was to be anchored by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The company announced a plan to build a $270 million dollar global research facility in the city. The local government jumped at the chance to transform 90 acres of an area right next to the proposed research facility. Their plans called for the creation of the Fort Trumbull development project which would provide hotels, housing and shopping areas for the expected influx of Pfizer employees. There were going to be jobs and revenues A-Go-Go in New London. Just one obstacle stood in the way of these grand plans. There were private homes in that space.

No muss – no fuss. The city fathers had a valuable tool in their favor. They would just issue an edict that they were taking the land by eminent domain. The city created a private development corporation to lead the project. First priority for the new corporation was to obtain the needed property.

Purchase Tom’s latest book “Sustainable: The WAR on Free Enterprise, Private Property and Individuals”.

In July, 1997, Susette Kelo bought a nice little pink house in a quiet fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London. Little did she imagine that warm, comfy place would soon become the center of a firestorm.

She had no intention of selling. She’d spent a considerable amount of money and time fixing up her little pink house, a home with a beautiful view of the waterfront that she could afford. She planted flowers in the yard, braided her own rugs for the floors, filled the rooms with antiques and created the home she wanted.

Less than a year later, the trouble started. A real estate broker suddenly showed up at her door representing an unknown client. Susette said she wasn’t interested in selling. The realtor’s demeanor then changed, warning that the property was going to be condemned by the city. One year later, on the day before Thanksgiving, the sheriff taped a letter to Kelo’s door, stating that her home had been condemned by the City of New London.

Then the pressure began. A notice came in the mail telling her that the city intended to take her land. An offer of compensation was made, but it was below the market price. The explanation given was that, since the government was going to take the land, it was no longer worth the old market price, therefore the lower price was “just compensation,” as called for in the Fifth Amendment. It was a “fair price,” Kelo and the homeowners were told over and over.

Some neighbors quickly gave up, took the money and moved away. With the loss of each one, the pressure mounted. Visits from government agents became routine. They knocked on the door at all hours, demanding she sell. Newspaper articles depicted her as unreasonably holding up community progress. They called her greedy. Finally, the bulldozers moved in on the properties already sold. As they crushed down the houses, the neighborhood became unlivable. It looked like a war zone.

In Susette Kelo’s neighborhood, the imposing bulldozer was sadistically parked in front of a house, waiting. The homeowner came under greater pressure to sell. More phone calls, threatening letters, visits by city officials at all hours demanding they sign the contract to sell. It just didn’t stop. Finally the intimidation began to break down the most dedicated homeowners’ resolve. In tears, they gave in and sold. Amazingly, once they sold, the homeowners were then classified as “willing sellers!”

Immediately, as each house was bulldozed, the monster machine was moved to the next house, sitting there like a huffing, puffing dragon, ready to strike.

Finally Susette’s little pink house stood nearly alone in the middle of a destruction site. Over 80 homes were gone: seven remained. As if under attack by a conquering army, she was finally surrounded, with no place to run but to the courts. Under any circumstances the actions of the New London government and its sham development corporation should have been considered criminal behavior. It used to be. If city officials were caught padding their own pockets, or those of their friends, it was considered graft. That’s why RICO laws were created.

The United States was built on the very premise of the protection of private property rights. How could a government possibly be allowed to take anyone’s home for private gain? Surely justice would finally prevail.

The city was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, one of the largest proponents of eminent domain use, saying the policy was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects. However, the Supreme Court had always stood with the founders of the nation on the vital importance of private property. There was precedent after precedent to back up the optimism that they would do so again.

Finally, her case was heard by the highest court in the land. It was such an obvious case of government overreach against private property owners that no one considered there was a chance of New London winning. That’s why it was a shock to nearly everyone involved that private property rights sustained a near-death blow that day.

This time, five black robes named Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer shocked the nation by ruling that officials who had behaved like Tony Soprano were in the right and Susette Kelo had no ground to stand on, literally or figuratively.

These four men and one woman ruled that the United States Constitution is meaningless as a tool to protect individuals against the wants and desires of government. Their ruling in the Kelo case declared that Americans own nothing. After deciding that any property is subject to the whim of a government official, it was just a short trip to declaring that government could now confiscate anything we own, anything we create, anything we’ve worked for – in the name of an undefined common good.

Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who opposed the Court’s decision, vigorously rebutted the Majority’s argument, as she wrote in dissent of the majority opinion, “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

Justice Clarence Thomas issued his own rebuttal to the decision, specifically attacking the argument that this was a case about “public use.” He accused the Majority of replacing the Fifth Amendment’s “Public Use” clause with a very different “Public Purpose” test. Said Justice Thomas “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a public use.”

Astonishingly the members of the Supreme Court have no other job but to protect the Constitution and defend it from bad legislation. They sit in their lofty ivory tower, with their lifetime appointments, never actually having to worry about job security or the need to answer to political pressure. Yet, these five black robes obviously missed finding a single copy of the Federalist Papers, which were written by many of the Founders to explain to the American people how they envisioned the new government was to work. In addition, they apparently missed the collected writings of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and George Washington, just to mention a very few. It’s obvious because otherwise, there is simply no way they could have reached this decision.

So, in a five to four vote, the Supreme Court said that it was okay for a community to use eminent domain to take land, shut down a business, or destroy and reorganize an entire neighborhood, if it benefited the community in a positive way. Specifically, “positive” meant unquestioned government control and more tax dollars.

The Institute for Justice, the group that defended Susette Kelo before the Supreme Court, reported that it found 10,000 cases in which condemnation was used or threatened for the benefit of private developers. These cases were all within a five-year period after the Kelo decision. Today, that figure is dwarfed as there is seemingly no limit on government takings of private property.

The Kelo decision changed the rules. The precedent was set. Land can now be taken anytime at the whim of a power elite. So again, the question must be asked: if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, will he stand to protect private property rights against massive overreach by local, state, and federal governments? Will he support an effort to overturn the Kelo Decision?

APC: https://americanpolicy.org/2018/07/17/will-brett-kavanaugh-stand-for-property-rights/

Read Tom Deweese’s Biography