May 25, 2019
In this episode, Brian Johnston reminds us of the actual nature of the Roe versus Wade decision and the companion decision, Doe versus Bolton. Unfortunately, the major media has misrepresented these decisions since they came down on January 22, 1973.
Brian points out the amazing fact that the average person, when fully informed just how far Roe and Doe reach, does not agree with these Supreme Court findings. What that means is your neighbors, and the average person, even in California, more than seventy percent of Californians do not agree with unlimited abortion on demand.
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun declared he did not know when life began, and from that point on, the entire decision refuses to recognize the life of the child or the rights of the child at any time within the womb. In Doe v. Bolton, again Justice Blackmun, the author, wrote it as a companion decision to work with Roe and it then institutionalized a new abortion law across the entire nation - overturning the laws of every state.
Such judicial legislating is in direct violation of the constitutional role of the Supreme Court.
In Doe, Blackmun does not refer to the life of the mother, but in fact explicitly instructs the abortionist regarding the “health“ of the mother. He defines health as including “familial, psychological, emotional, factors – anything that may impact the well-being of the patient.” He does not use the word “mother” as this would imply there is a child.
The generous instructions to the attending abortionist are based on the abortionist’s opinion of the well-being of the mother and not on the woman’s immediate opinion.
This is significant in that there are many women who have indeed gotten up from the abortionist table to refuse an abortion. Women can be very torn about the actions at hand. Justice Blackmon is clearly stating it is the abortionist’s decision whether or not to do the abortion. He is situated to ‘guide’ the woman if her psychological ‘alarms are going off’ It is this passage in particular that has drawn great fire from radical feminists, because they believe it is not up to the abortionist, a paternalistic decision-maker, but in their mind, abortion should entirely in the realm of the woman’s decision.
When the average American fully understands the far reach of Roe versus Wade, they do not agree. What that means is, our job is to explain what Roe really does. Our job is not to explain our theology or philosophy or our opinion of when life begins. We can discuss that later. If they agree that Roe goes too far, we should accept that wise conclusion. They are on our side and want a pre-Roe world. If you demand they accept all of your ideas at once you are pushing away your natural allies.
Only if they are in a more unusual position of being a judge or actual lawmaker, then extensive philosophy and proposed options to Roe should be examined. In the meantime, if you can get them to understand Roe, they are very likely to disagree with Roe.
THAT is a win, and the more folks that demand Roe’s overturn the better. Until Roe is overturned there will be no laws written - so if they are with you, let them know they have some insight, let them know it is good to disagree with Roe.
Your job in this present moment is to restore the legal right to life. That can only be done when Roe is overturned. Let them help!!!