Forty years ago, the United States Supreme Court amended the US Constitution. In what can only be described as judicial activism carried to levels seldom seen before or since.
In a 7-2 decision, the court declared that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizens a right to privacy, which is not even hinted at in the text of the amendment. They held that this phantom right takes precedence over the right of an innocent child to life, even though that right is explicitly mentioned in the text of the amendment.
Since then, millions of innocent children have been killed in the most gruesome ways imaginable – by injecting salt water into their bodies and poisoning them; by dismemberment, literally ripping them apart limb from limb with a vacuum; by stabbing them in the back of the head with scissors and sucking their brains out before forcibly collapsing their heads.
It is to our society’s shame that we seek out these procedures, tolerate them, and enforce people’s desire and ability to perform them. The seven Justices have a grievous stain upon their souls.
I can only pray that God will have mercy on their souls.
And ours.
Forty Years of a Great Stain
Tags:
Comments
32 responses to “Forty Years of a Great Stain”
-
Forty Years of a Great Stain
Interestingly, I first read this header as Forty Years of a Great Satan…
-
Forty Years of a Great Stain
Interestingly, I first read this header as Forty Years of a Great Satan…
-
mharper42
Interestingly, I first read this header as Forty Years of a Great Satan…
I did to!.. Is there an inner meaning in there or are we both dyslexic?
-
mharper42
Interestingly, I first read this header as Forty Years of a Great Satan…
I did to!.. Is there an inner meaning in there or are we both dyslexic?
-
Well, unless you can get dyslexic as you get old… I didn’t used to be. 🙂
-
Well, unless you can get dyslexic as you get old… I didn’t used to be. 🙂
-
We’re very blessed that there is no explicit mention of “right to privacy” in any of the US Constitution’s text.
-
We’re very blessed that there is no explicit mention of “right to privacy” in any of the US Constitution’s text.
-
mharper #1;
That’s what I thought at first as well. 🙂
-
mharper #1;
That’s what I thought at first as well. 🙂 -
Well, unless you can get dyslexic as you get old… I didn’t used to be. 🙂
Maybe you’re lesdyxic?
-
Well, unless you can get dyslexic as you get old… I didn’t used to be. 🙂
Maybe you’re lesdyxic?
-
#6
Maybe you’re lesdyxic?
That sounds very unpleasant, so I hope not.
It occurs to me that we are doing a lot of joshing around in this thread which is actually as serious and solemn a topic as could be imagined. There is no humor in the topic of abortion.
-
#6
Maybe you’re lesdyxic?
That sounds very unpleasant, so I hope not.
It occurs to me that we are doing a lot of joshing around in this thread which is actually as serious and solemn a topic as could be imagined. There is no humor in the topic of abortion. -
I join those who read it as Satan.
-
I join those who read it as Satan.
-
Remember the story from earlier in the week about that “doctor” in Pennsylvania who ran the abortatorem and has been charged with infanticide? Things are even worse, if that is believable. From the Grand Jury report:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
…
Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety. Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer.So what happened? Why were there no inspections of even basic sanitation? Former Governor Tom Ridge, a pro abortion Republican discontinued inspections in 1993 because he felt they would impede access to abortions by poor women.
Furthermore, the people who worked at this “clinic” were as inhuman as it is possible to be:
Sometimes, the elderly physician didn’t do this [cut an infant’s spinal cord with scissors – after it had been born] right away. Often, he allegedly gave the chore to his unlicensed office staff. One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck – after first playing with him.
These people are sick. I’m trying to rationalize why I want to be against capital punishment at this point and am having a desperately difficult time doing so.
The state certainly bears some of the responsibility in this case.
The atrocities were discovered by accident.
Police last February raided Gosnell’s offices after reports that he ran a “pill mill” there, giving out prescription medications to anyone who would pay.
Once inside the three-story brick building, they discovered horrors that would haunt them forever.
Semiconscious, moaning women sat in dirty recliners and on bloodstained blankets. The air reeked of urine from the flea-infested cats permitted to roam the clinic. There was blood on the floor and cat feces on the stairs. One investigator likened the scene to “a bad gas-station restroom.”
In the basement,
Detectives found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. Fetal remains filled bags, milk jugs, orange-juice cartons and even cat-food containers; some were stored in a refrigerator where staffers chilled their lunches. In all, authorities found the remains of 45 fetuses in this “baby charnel house” and gave them to the medical examiner, who determined that at least two of them had been born alive, according to the grand-jury report.
This guy is beyond sick.
“We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion,” the grand-jury report stated.
But it’s ok with the liberal pro-abortion crowd. After all, it was just a bunch of brown people. This is a prime example of how the paternalistic attitude toward minorities by liberals can actually kill people.
Gosnell was charged with infanticide in the deaths of seven viable infants and with murder in the Nov. 20, 2009, death of Karnamaya Mongar, 41, a Nepalese refugee who died of too much anesthesia at Gosnell’s clinic. Other charges against Gosnell include conspiracy, solicitation to commit murder, abuse of a corpse, corrupt organizations, corruption of minors, drug offenses, hindering prosecution and violations of abortion law.
Quite a list of carnage this ghoul managed to leave in his wake.
-
Remember the story from earlier in the week about that “doctor” in Pennsylvania who ran the abortatorem and has been charged with infanticide? Things are even worse, if that is believable. From the Grand Jury report:
The Pennsylvania Department of Health abruptly decided, for political reasons, to stop inspecting abortion clinics at all. The politics in question were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor Casey to Governor Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be “putting a barrier up to women” seeking abortions.
…
Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety. Without regular inspections, providers like Gosnell continue to operate; unlawful and dangerous third-trimester abortions go undetected; and many women, especially poor women, suffer.So what happened? Why were there no inspections of even basic sanitation? Former Governor Tom Ridge, a pro abortion Republican discontinued inspections in 1993 because he felt they would impede access to abortions by poor women.
Furthermore, the people who worked at this “clinic” were as inhuman as it is possible to be:Sometimes, the elderly physician didn’t do this [cut an infant’s spinal cord with scissors – after it had been born] right away. Often, he allegedly gave the chore to his unlicensed office staff. One premature infant wiggled around on a counter for 20 minutes before an untrained worker slit his neck – after first playing with him.
These people are sick. I’m trying to rationalize why I want to be against capital punishment at this point and am having a desperately difficult time doing so.
The state certainly bears some of the responsibility in this case.The atrocities were discovered by accident.
Police last February raided Gosnell’s offices after reports that he ran a “pill mill” there, giving out prescription medications to anyone who would pay.
Once inside the three-story brick building, they discovered horrors that would haunt them forever.
Semiconscious, moaning women sat in dirty recliners and on bloodstained blankets. The air reeked of urine from the flea-infested cats permitted to roam the clinic. There was blood on the floor and cat feces on the stairs. One investigator likened the scene to “a bad gas-station restroom.”In the basement,
Detectives found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. Fetal remains filled bags, milk jugs, orange-juice cartons and even cat-food containers; some were stored in a refrigerator where staffers chilled their lunches. In all, authorities found the remains of 45 fetuses in this “baby charnel house” and gave them to the medical examiner, who determined that at least two of them had been born alive, according to the grand-jury report.
This guy is beyond sick.
“We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities, and because the subject was the political football of abortion,” the grand-jury report stated.
But it’s ok with the liberal pro-abortion crowd. After all, it was just a bunch of brown people. This is a prime example of how the paternalistic attitude toward minorities by liberals can actually kill people.
Gosnell was charged with infanticide in the deaths of seven viable infants and with murder in the Nov. 20, 2009, death of Karnamaya Mongar, 41, a Nepalese refugee who died of too much anesthesia at Gosnell’s clinic. Other charges against Gosnell include conspiracy, solicitation to commit murder, abuse of a corpse, corrupt organizations, corruption of minors, drug offenses, hindering prosecution and violations of abortion law.
Quite a list of carnage this ghoul managed to leave in his wake.
-
Don’t forget that our beloved Dear Leader supports this kind of gruesome activity and has indicated that the wishes of the mother should be carried out even if the infant is born alive.
-
Don’t forget that our beloved Dear Leader supports this kind of gruesome activity and has indicated that the wishes of the mother should be carried out even if the infant is born alive.
http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/ExactBillKilledbyObama.html -
Don’t forget that our beloved Dear Leader supports this kind of gruesome activity and has indicated that the wishes of the mother should be carried out even if the infant is born alive.
What about the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law? What about the WISHES OF THE FATHER??? In family law court, the default position is that the child is beter off with the mother and in order for that to change, the father has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child(s) are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. Before the child is born the father has no say whatsoever; after the child is born, the father, upon separation of the couple, has to pay and pay and usually has little or no say in how the child is raised or how the money is spent. The phrase “double standard” doesn’t even come close.
-
Don’t forget that our beloved Dear Leader supports this kind of gruesome activity and has indicated that the wishes of the mother should be carried out even if the infant is born alive.
What about the 14th amendment, equal protection under the law? What about the WISHES OF THE FATHER??? In family law court, the default position is that the child is beter off with the mother and in order for that to change, the father has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child(s) are in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death. Before the child is born the father has no say whatsoever; after the child is born, the father, upon separation of the couple, has to pay and pay and usually has little or no say in how the child is raised or how the money is spent. The phrase “double standard” doesn’t even come close.
-
#11 Bones
Valid points, but the other side of the coin is that in most cases where the couple splits up in spite of having a child together, this is because the sperm-donor abandons them. I bet there are more deadbeat dads than there are unfit mothers.
Although a good case could be made that only an unfit mother would bring a child into the world w/o being in a stable marriage.
-
#11 Bones
Valid points, but the other side of the coin is that in most cases where the couple splits up in spite of having a child together, this is because the sperm-donor abandons them. I bet there are more deadbeat dads than there are unfit mothers.
Although a good case could be made that only an unfit mother would bring a child into the world w/o being in a stable marriage. -
#12 – I would certainly like to see some source information regarding your statement about there being more deadbeat dads than there are unfit mothers. I could perceive a great deal of latitude in the definitions of the terms I suppose, but let’s don’t forget that the government has chosen to take the father out of the equation.
And only an unfit mother would bring a child into the world w/o being in a stable marriage??? Well, I guess I would suggest that there are alternatives available to that mother other than just killing her baby, regardless of her marital status.
Judges seem to have a unique ability to find things in our Constitution that do not exist but have trouble finding those words that clearly exist – I guess that’s what the elite consider to be well rounded and open minded, as opposed to us red necked bigots who just want to try to play by the rules.
-
#12 – I would certainly like to see some source information regarding your statement about there being more deadbeat dads than there are unfit mothers. I could perceive a great deal of latitude in the definitions of the terms I suppose, but let’s don’t forget that the government has chosen to take the father out of the equation.
And only an unfit mother would bring a child into the world w/o being in a stable marriage??? Well, I guess I would suggest that there are alternatives available to that mother other than just killing her baby, regardless of her marital status.
Judges seem to have a unique ability to find things in our Constitution that do not exist but have trouble finding those words that clearly exist – I guess that’s what the elite consider to be well rounded and open minded, as opposed to us red necked bigots who just want to try to play by the rules. -
EG, please let me rephrase that to say “only an unfit mother would get pregnant w/o being in a stable marriage”.
I did not mean that if the couple isn’t married, then I think they should abort the child! But I can see now that my comment is easily misinterpreted. And even rephrased, it is still a bit harsh. Oh well, that basically is how I look at women’s casual relationships that produce children.
And no, I don’t have stats for the deadbeat dads vs the legally unfit mothers. If I did, I would cite the source, not just say “I bet that…”
-
EG, please let me rephrase that to say “only an unfit mother would get pregnant w/o being in a stable marriage”.
I did not mean that if the couple isn’t married, then I think they should abort the child! But I can see now that my comment is easily misinterpreted. And even rephrased, it is still a bit harsh. Oh well, that basically is how I look at women’s casual relationships that produce children.
And no, I don’t have stats for the deadbeat dads vs the legally unfit mothers. If I did, I would cite the source, not just say “I bet that…” -
YUP This make me proud to be an American; Obama recalls Roe v. Wade, backs abortion rights
Pookie’s statment;Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
-
YUP This make me proud to be an American; Obama recalls Roe v. Wade, backs abortion rights
Pookie’s statment;Today marks the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, and affirms a fundamental principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters.
I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.
And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams. -
#15 SD
The Foul O:
ensuring our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
So the sons who get a girl pregnant are not “punished with a baby”, only the pregnant girl is punished — i.e. loses her freedoms and opportunities. This is the government attitude someone mentioned here this weekend — removing the sperm-donor from the responsibility equation.
-
#15 SD
The Foul O:ensuring our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.
So the sons who get a girl pregnant are not “punished with a baby”, only the pregnant girl is punished — i.e. loses her freedoms and opportunities. This is the government attitude someone mentioned here this weekend — removing the sperm-donor from the responsibility equation.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.