America's Molech Worship, part 2: A Legalized Crime
Ryan Cox • September 22, 2021
America's Molech Worship, part 2: A Legalized Crime
“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment…in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries…I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and the legislatures of the States…I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.”¹ ~ Justice Byron White
“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion…There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”² ~ Justice William Rehnquist
Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist were the only two Supreme Court justices to vote against the legalization of abortion in the 1973 Roe v. Wade
and Doe v. Bolton
decisions. Their dissents, as partially quoted above, contained several reasons why the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of abortion was unconstitutional.
- It is clearly a matter left to the states to decide, not the federal government (10th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).
- The Court violated the separation of powers as it wrote new legislation breaking pregnancy into three distinct terms and then deciding what is allowed in each of those terms (Article I, Section 1 of U.S. Constitution).
- The Court was only allowed to rule on the individual case, not on behalf of all pregnant women. The Court was kept in the dark as to the particular situations of “Roe” and “Doe” since they never appeared before the Court to bring their suits (Moose Lodge v. Irvis, 407 U.S. 163; Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727).
- Because it was a “hypothetical lawsuit” with the plaintiffs remaining anonymous, the Court violated its practice of never formulating a rule of Constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied (Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia S.S. Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration, 113 U.S. 33, 39).
- Since neither “Roe” nor “Doe” claimed to have any mental or physical health concerns with their pregnancies, there was no legal basis to make the claim on behalf of any other pregnant women that abortions may be necessary for the mental or physical health of a mother. For that to be done, a pregnant lady would have had to file suit claiming she needed an abortion for the sake of her mental or physical health. Therefore, “Roe” and “Doe” did not have “standing” to assert the rights of other pregnant women (United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62).
- Even if the Texas law was found to be misapplied in the case of Roe, it was to be declared unconstitutional as applied to the specific case, not to be completely struck down along with all other states’ laws ( Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576).
- The Court’s appeal to the 4th Amendment for a “right of privacy” in this case is baseless. The law protects individuals from unwarranted search and seizures in the privacy of one’s home. The Texas law in question was the forbiddance of licensed doctors in Texas to kill unborn babies. It was not a law forbidding consenting adults to engage in consensual sexual behavior, as is often argued. It was a law forbidding medical procedures that harm a non-consenting child. The 4th Amendment, therefore, does not apply (Rehnquist’s dissent in Roe v. Wade).
- The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to a state’s valid objectives in a law (Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 491). If the suit brought before the Court was about a state law forbidding a mother from having an abortion when her physical life is in danger, then the Court could decide if the state was violating the mother’s 14th Amendment rights. However, since the case was about a mother who simply wanted to have her baby killed while in the first trimester when her life was not in jeopardy, the baby’s 14th Amendment rights were therefore violated by the Court’s ruling. Consequently, the Court completely ignored the important matter of the “compelling state interest”.
- The Court completely dismissed the Equal Protection Clause, as all individuals, whether in a womb or not, have the legally protected right to life (14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution).
- The 14th Amendment specifically does not contain a woman’s right to abortion as 36 state or territorial abortion laws were already in place up to 47 years when the 14th Amendment was drafted, proposed, and passed by these states. They all clearly passed it knowing it did not apply to abortion. It was never even argued that it could possibly pertain to abortion until 100 years later!
- Because the States had outlawed abortion for so long and were still doing so, the declared “right” to an abortion was clearly not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental” (Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105). As a result, the 9th Amendment’s protection of unenumerated (non-listed) rights does not apply. The Supreme Court even stated as much, choosing instead to try and use the 14th Amendment to defend their decision to legalize abortion and rule against the will of the American people.
Just so no one thinks it is an exaggeration to state how poorly determined and unconstitutional the Court’s ruling was, shortly after the ruling was released, Professor John Hart Ely wrote in The Yale Law Journal, “What is frightening about Roe
is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure.”³
Professor Laurence Tribe wrote in the Harvard Law Review, “One of the most curious things about Roe
is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”⁴ ⁵
Even Justice Harry Blackmun’s (one of the 7 justices who voted in favor of Roe) personal law clerk Edward Lazarus (who is very liberal and pro-abortion) wrote in 2002, “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe
borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose…The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent…when Democratic senators oppose a judicial appointment because of the nominee’s opposition to Roe…they practically require that a judicial nominee sign on to logic that is, at best, questionable, and at worst, disingenuous and results-oriented…The standard critique of liberal judges trumpets their willingness to substitute personal preference for legal analysis – and Roe
is universally featured as Exhibit A.”⁶
And there it is: the legalization of abortion is not founded on the Constitution, judicial precedent, or the will of the people, but rather the personal preferences of 7 immoral men who wanted to “justify” sin by making it “legal.” Henceforth, abortion has been a legalized crime against humanity and the very image of God.
Is there hope for this atrocity that plagues our nation? With Jesus, there is always hope!
End notes:
1. Justice Byron White dissenting opinion in Doe v. Bolton, http://www.usccb.org/_cs_upload/8556_1.pdf
2. Justice William Rehnquist dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#writing-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD
3. John Hart Ely, “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade”, The Yale Law Journal, 1973, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=5116&context=fss_papers
4. Lawrence H. Tribe, “The Supreme Court 1972 Term, Forward: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law”, Harvard Law Review, 1973, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1339866?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
5. http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2016/01/abortion-defenders-explain-why-roe-v-wade-was-a-terrible-legal-decision-5/#.WLSsK28rJxA
6. Edward Lazarus, “The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade”, http://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/the-lingering-problems-with-roe-v-wade-and-why-the-recent-senate-hearings-on-michael-mcconnells-nomination-only-underlined-them.html
One of the most important ministry focuses CTF has is the Sharp Institute for Biblical Worldview Studies (SIBWS). Dr. Sharp began this division of our ministry in 2005 because of a specific call from the Lord. As Doc would share often, the Lord challenged him. He saw that even with all of the programming and books sold in the church programs that we did year after year, and as impactful and Kingdom-building as that was, when we left there was most often no one in the local body to continue our message and teaching on Genesis 1-12 and its importance to the Gospel. The Lord directed Doc to multiply the teaching and mission of CTF in the local body. So Doc heard the call and accepted the challenge, as he always did from the Lord, and IBWS was born. Doc called a few people to join him for study that first meeting of the IBWS at a dude ranch in north Texas. I was one of those first invited to come and study, as many of you know from my personal testimony shared over the years. It was Providence that directed me to this Cadre study group and laid the foundation for me to be in the position I am today. As the four of us in that first group studied, the Lord connected, emphasized, and exhorted the importance of Genesis in our worldviews. When I left that first meeting, I was full and ready to teach and preach what the Lord had just challenged and changed in my worldview. Now, 21 years later, Doc’s original calling and direction for the IBWS continues. Over the course of these years, 146 members have completed the training. Each one has been challenged to use what they have learned wherever the Lord places them in ministry. For some it is from the pulpit, others are in vocational student ministry, and some have been called to primarily impact their own families with worldview training. We send them off with all of our outlines and presentation slides to help accomplish this task. It is quite exciting to look back and see what the Lord has done through this endeavor. Ryan and I literally might not be where we are today if we hadn’t first studied in our Cadre program. When Doc retired and passed the mantle of the presidency to me in 2018, it seemed fitting to honor his enduring call to Biblical worldview training by renaming the Institute to bear his name. So now it will forever be called the Sharp Institute for Biblical Worldview Studies. Over the course of its history we have had consistent numbers of invited members desiring to learn more of the Word of God. However, we have never had a consistent location to provide the training. It’s through the generous offerings of borrowed church facilities that we have been able to continue SIBWS without a home of its own. It is time to change that. We are in need of our own facility to house the SIBWS presently and for future expansion of this CTF ministry division. We have been pursuing different options, from renovating our present office building to the purchasing of additional space. Providence would have it that 2 doors north of our offices there is a property for sale. It is a great fit for the SIBWS Cadre program needs, and it would also provide room for our books and resources department to expand out of its present cramped space. It has a room for a training facility, a kitchen (needing renovation), dining room options, possible sleeping quarters for a Cadre member in need, 3 bathrooms and a shower, parking out back (which we have been blessed to utilize for years by permission), and the afore mentioned room for our books and resources department. We have no idea how we could ever afford such a property without the Lord’s help, as we are devoted to being as debt free as possible moving forward in this ministry. In the midst of seeking the Lord for this need to be met, He has already sent us a generous offer of a $100,000 matching gift toward the purchase of a property , even if the building up the block is not the one. Truly, our financial position has never been more blessed at any other time in our history than at present, being completely debt free. So, I share all of this to ask for your prayers as we move forward to find a solution to our need of a home for the SIBWS and it’s continued effectiveness for the Kingdom. Also lift up the matching gift offer: I must exhort you to seek the Lord if you are one to help us do what, at this moment seems impossible, to purchase property without incurring debt . The mission of CTF is accomplished month in and month out with the exceeding blessings of churches, family members, and individuals that support us. The Lord’s faithfulness through all these years is unmistakable and we look forward to seeing Him do more of the impossible. May the Lord bless, keep, and challenge you for His Kingdom!
The First Prayer In Congress by T.H. Matteson, 1848