Since 1973, Christians have been fighting the legalization of abortion that has resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of unborn babies. Unfortunately, for most of the time, there has been little progress made.
In the last decade, one may note that in some states, there has been a clear opposition to abortion at the same time that abortion became very popular in other states. Many in the south and midwest, for example, immediately opposed abortion or began a strong fight to ban it, while many on the coasts as well as in major metropolitan areas have given special legal protections to abortionists.
As American law has come to function, a single court case can overturn any number of laws written or passed. As such, just as abortion was legalized with a single court case, so it has been to the general delight of pro-life advocates that the U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday it will consider a challenge to a Republican-backed Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. The case specifically deals with a Louisiana law from 2014 would close every abortion clinic in the state except for one as it requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to block the Louisiana law from going into effect until the case could be adjudicated. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberal justices in the majority, while Kavanaugh wrote in dissent.
In 2016, an eight-member Supreme Court struck down provisions of a similar Texas law. In a 5-3 decision, the court concluded that legal demands for abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges and for abortion clinics to be regulated as surgical centers were an “undue burden” to a woman’s right to an abortion. (source)
The supporters of infanticide are naturally upset with the case, as if upheld by the courts, abortion could significantly be reduced in the state.
Given that Louisiana has a heavy black population, that blacks are the most likely group in the US to get an abortion, and that the abortion industry is a direct source of materials in the form of dead children for the bizarre eugenics and military experiments of Silicon Valley corporations, scientists with Frankensteinesque dreams of creation, and those working on creating the next major biological weapon, an end to abortion is a major interruption in their supply chain as well as a direct business threat to those who profit from trafficking in said dismembered body parts for profit.
It is correct, as many “pro-lifers” have pointed out, that the infanticide lobby does not care about the good will of women at all, and for those who do, especially at the top, it is almost always subjugated to the pursuit of profit.
There are many people who believe that because of the conservative majority on the court, some of the left fear what could happen as a result of the Supreme Court taking up the Louisiana case. The concern is that the Supreme Court is going to be used to render Roe v. Wade ineffective as a federal law forced on states and turn regulation over to the states, who then have the choice to potentially regulate abortion clinics out of existence.
It would be an excellent thing to see Roe v. Wade finally brought to an overdue death. The question is, will this happen or not?
One may argue that America is more supportive of the pro-life cause than ever before, but this is highly debatable as it varies largely along the lines of demographic concentration. There may be more states that are open to stopping infanticide, but it does not mean that the people are. Even if they are, the fact is that the support of eugenics in the US, something which has been a consistent problem for centuries, is rising again and is evidenced by the push for ideas concerning racial or ethnic superiority held by many sides. The problem is not necessarily disappearing, but just changing forms. This does not even discuss the issues of sodomitic behavior, which is both a manifestation of and a gateway to eugenics.
Likewise, there is the issue of whether or not the court will rule in favor of the pro-life side or not.
If they do not rule in support of the pro-life side, what is the next step?
This is not to suggest giving up, but to note that even one single ruling could significant stop efforts to end this abhorrent practice, of which it may become harder due to the social and demographic changes taking place.
The attempt and the intentions are good, but it is part of a larger problem, which is the eugenics mentality of the US. Stopping abortion, a necessary and good thing, must eventually lead to dealing with the eugenics philosophy embraced by so many, and that will necessarily mean a direct opposition to the paganism that is sweeping over the US and much of the Western world and is directly opposing Christianity.
It is good to be hopeful, but one should not place too many hopes in court judges, politicians, or lawyers. The Conservative movement has a long history of focusing on a specific person as a “savior” for a given set of causes before dumping him for another “savior” of a like category and completely ignoring the previous. Liberals do similar things, but tend to keep people around longer and provide more support to them, while the Conservative approach is a rocketing to fame followed by a crash-and-burn to obsolescence that happens just as fast.
Justice Roberts was once regarded as a “star” of the conservatives, and then he crashed quickly. Justice Kavanaugh has taken his place in terms of the popular perception of who the next “star” is, and while one should be concerned about any vote he makes, he is not the “star” nor is any man.
One should continue to support the movement to end infanticide, but also not to place unnecessarily false hope in people. Rather, their support should be determined by their actions, which is yet to be seen.
Comments are closed.