Democrats haven’t been so mad since Lincoln freed their slaves. The US Supreme Court has finally put a stop to a veritable river of babies, over 61 million, going to the slaughterhouse, authorised by the illicit ruling in Roe v. Wade, (1973). Each year since, between one in three to one in five of all babies conceived in the US have perished.
Now, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court has finally done what it should have done in its partial retreat in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
This reversal has yet again confirmed Donald Trump’s place high in the pantheon of great presidents, another addition to his great achievements,domestic and foreign. With all his eventually successful judicial nominations forming part of the 6:3 majority in this case, nominations which the Democrats tried to thwart by unjustified lies and calumnies, he has fulfilled yet another of the several campaign promises he made in 2016. The outrage now is that by refusing proper security measures for the judges, the Democrats are obviously inviting their assassination.
The horror of what was being done under Roe v. Wade was brought home like a parable to Americans, and as well to the world a few years ago, when they saw the controllers of the abortion industry.
Executives of the peak abortionist, Planned Parenthood, were caught in undercover videos joking while negotiating contracts for the sale of intact baby body parts. In one, senior executive Dr Mary Gatter chortled, ‘I want a Lamborghini,’ when haggling over per-specimen pricing for livers, lungs and brains.
These videos created enormous outrage across the country, reminding people that this was the work of seven delinquent judges who had acted without the shallowest legal justification whatsoever.
We should pause for a moment to ask why mass abortion, justified under spurious constitutional grounds, was given legal effect by judges? Why was it not done by politicians, who after all alone have the role of designing and introducing legislation? And why was this judicial approach then followed in some other countries?
The answer is simple. It could not have been done otherwise.
Any politician who went to the electorate then with Roe v. Wade-like legislation as policy would have lost the election and probably the primary, the American equivalent of an Australian preselection, but far more democratic, especially in the Republican party. (It sounds like another world, but unlike Australia, Americans are actually allowed to choose who they and not the faceless men want as candidates.)
What is crucial to appreciate, is that the America of the time of Roe v. Wade was a country of believers, essentially Judeo-Christian. Not of course the elites who would set the fashion of abandoning religion.
One of the greatest explanations of the madness which exists today in the West is contained in what G.K. Chesterton never actually wrote but which I suspect, is consistent with his thoughts.
My formulation, David Flint Truth Number One, is in the following terms: ‘When a man stops believing in God, it’s not that he will believe in nothing. He will believe in anything’.
I see this everywhere. It explains much of the modern world. I would say that even if you don’t believe in God, or what I suspect is more likely you don’t know, it is good practice to concede that God might well exist.
This is because the only real alternative to religious belief or faith is not rationalism. Rationlism involves what could be called a different gear-shift.
If you clear your belief area completely of religious faith, other beliefs will come in. And the strongest dogma in the West today is modern Marxism. This is where the proletariat, which refused to cooperate with the Marxists, has been replaced with a moving feast of racial, sexual and so-called ‘gender’ victims.
The enemy of Marxism, whether classical or the modern variant, is still the same. This is any institution or person which can command greater loyalty or attraction than the Marxists. This clearly includes, in the forefront, the family and private property.
From Engels’ famous book, Marxists have always detested the family, which is why in communist states it is common to poison children’s minds about their parents. A long-term Marxist ambition has been to reduce the influence and longevity of families. Women in particular are encouraged to play down the role of motherhood as a mere occasional adjunct to their lives with much of the role of mother superficially taken over by the state. Only then, Marxists say, can women be free.
Hence the encouragement of abortion through the manipulation of the US Supreme Court, involving the killing of babies on a truly extraordinary industrial scale.
But the imposition of such an outrage as Roe v. Wade had another object, to take away or reduce the sense of decency the average American had in 1973 to any similar outrage.
If they were prepared to accept such a bloodletting of the innocents, more will be accepted. The sense of decency can become numb.
There are those who call for the introduction of infanticide as well as euthanasia without consent and/or for purposes other than terminal illness.
The delinquent judges not only presided over the slaughter of innocents on an industrial scale. They made accepting such outrage as a normal reaction. They turned people away from religion to accept evil. The damage has been enormous.
In the meantime there is a political and media determination to ensure first that Donald Trump cannot stand for the presidency and if he cannot, that no one else of his school of government can stand.
What is clear is that many right-thinking voters will see in this Supreme Court decision not only a correct application of the Constitution but more reason to hope for a Trumpian second term.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10