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
The Flood during Noah’s day was a devastating judgement against the sin and wickedness of the time. Most people focus on what the Lord did as He saved the eight people and animals on the Ark. Yet while they were being saved, the Flood destroyed the earth and left behind some remarkable things. Geology around the globe shows water burial of plants and animals. Many of the animal remains show signs of drowning and then burial. One particular reptile that shows this is the Ichthyosaurus. From what we can understand, water was her home for everything in life, even giving birth to live young. This well designed creature may even help us trust the Word of God when it comes to the history of the Flood. In our Mobile Museum of Earth History we exhibit a research replica of an ichthyosaur called Stenopterygius quadriscissus . She is from Holzmaden, Germany and is one example of hundreds that have been found in the area. The reason we can so confidently state this fossil is a “her,” when we rarely know for sure about fossil animals, is because she is pregnant. She has three babies present with her remains: one under her tail, one in or near the birth canal, and one still inside. Our fossil is in situ, which means the fossil remains in the rock matrix it was buried in. So, the presence of momma and babies are how they were buried and not articulated in some manner after excavation. This is important to show the rapid, watery burial that must have taken place to lock this scene in the fossil record. The Flood trapped organisms all over the world in different life positions. Sometimes the fossils left behind have shown eating, hunting, sleeping, swimming, nesting, or drowning. When it comes to ichthyosaurs around the planet, there is a significant number of females that seem to be pregnant. They have been found in the fossil record on at least four continents. A fair assumption would be that Ichthyosaurs had a certain time of year they mated and gave birth to young, much like sea turtles today that nest from late spring to late fall depending on the region around the world. So it should come as no surprise that we find pregnant ichthyosaurs all around the world as the Flood lasted an entire year. It would have buried the females that were pregnant near their location of habitat. Evolutionists maintain that ichthyosaurs lived tens to hundreds of million years ago and each of the mothers found in the fossil record just died while giving birth. This is difficult to support in a millions magnitude time scale. That would mean every time a disaster happened, millions of years apart, the right conditions existed to quickly bury ichthyosaurs that just so happened to be pregnant. It just might take some “faith” to trust that “miracle” would happen over and over again through eons of time. Or you can have faith that the Word of God’s history is correct with a judgement of man’s sin bringing global devastation through the Flood during Noah’s 600th year of life. The Word of God is trustworthy, with even the fossil record showing us glimpses of historical evidence in support of our faith. I’m so thankful we don’t need blind faith to trust our salvation! Blessings.
14 Nebuchadnezzar spoke, saying to them, “Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, that you do not serve my gods or worship the gold image which I have set up? 15 …if you do not worship, you shall be cast immediately into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. And who is the god who will deliver you from my hands?” 16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If that is the case, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us from your hand, O king. 18 But if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we do not serve your gods, nor will we worship the gold image which you have set up.” Daniel 3:14-18 In the 6th century BC, three young men stood up for their faith in the one true God, for which someone attempted to kill them. Today, in the 21st century AD, one young man was gunned down for his faith in the one true God. And sadly, Charlie Kirk is not the only one. According to The Esther Project, martyrdom for the cause of Christ is commonplace around the world ( theestherproject.com/statistics ). On average: 322 Christians are killed monthly. 214 churches or Christian properties are destroyed monthly. 772 forms of violence (beatings, kidnappings, etc.) against Christians are committed monthly. 100,000 to 160,000 Christians are killed annually in the 21st century. 1.093 million Christians were martyred between 2000 and 2010. And more than 70 million Christians are believed to have been martyred since the 1st century, with more than half killed in the 20th century alone under communist and fascist governments. And how should Christians respond? Peter wrote, “ if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but glorify God in this name ” (I Peter 4:16). Jesus took this a step further; He told us, “ …love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you ” (Matthew 5:44). Now, as Shawn Grant, minister at Kissimmee Christian Church, FL, preached on the Sunday following the assassination, th at may not be what you want to hear right now, but that is what Jesus has told us we must do. Why? So the world will see the difference Jesus makes! The night of and the days after the assassination, businesses did not have to board up their stores. Police and soldiers did not have to be deployed. There were no riots, no property damages, no police spat upon – only tears, prayers, and a witness to the world that Jesus is the answer. So noticeable is this to the world, there were more international press requests for the Charlie Kirk memorial service than are requested for Super Bowls. Within seven days of his death, Kirk’s ministry Turning Point USA had received over 54,000 campus chapter requests. And most importantly, scores of videos of young people considering or even deciding to give their lives to Jesus have been posted to social media platforms.