If Ron Paul Isn’t Pro-Life, Who Is?

A friend passed along an article  written by author Laurence M. Vance, about American Right to Life’s recent assault  on Dr. Ron Paul’s pro-life position. Vance comes out swinging:

The right-to-life movement is a failure. Although millions of dollars have been spent on lobbying, marches, and protests since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, millions of women have still had abortions since then. There is no doubt that many abortions have been prevented, but even a round number of how many is almost impossible to estimate. The pro-life movement has failed miserably to persuade women to not have abortions, to educate women on the evils of abortion, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to convince doctors to not perform abortions, to effectively counsel women with unwanted pregnancies, to impede promiscuity, and to provide sufficient alternatives to pregnant women considering abortion.

Pro-lifers are quick to lay the blame on the Supreme Court, activist federal judges, Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, feminists, doctors who perform abortions, the Democratic Party, and liberals – anywhere and anyone but themselves and the women who actually have abortions.

According to most pro-lifers, the solution to the abortion problem is not persuasion, education, or counseling; it is more centralization of power in the federal government – the same government that, in a vast power grab that did violence to the Constitution, asserted federal supremacy over the states’ abortion laws in the Roe v. Wade decision.

Vance goes on to reiterate Dr. Paul’s proper federalist approach to the life issue, which is, in my opinion, the only sensible political strategy for American pro-lifers. As John Adams famously said, “the very definition of a republic is ‘an empire of laws, and not of men.’ ”  No matter how vital the issue, if we fail to honor the framework of law which we hope will support what is right, we cut the legs right out from under any permanent legal protections of the issues we care most about.

Vance continues his summary:

Dr. Paul’s first step in eradicating the plague of abortion from America is a simple one: remove the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, as the Constitution allows in Article III. This would take only a simple majority vote of both houses of Congress. The self-proclaimed pro-lifers in Congress had their best chance to do this just a few years ago and blew it. Most Republicans in Congress claim to be pro-life; some Democrats in Congress claim to be pro-life. Between the two parties enough votes could have been obtained to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court when the Republicans controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress – the period from January 20, 2001, to June 5, 2001, and again from January 3, 2003, to January 2, 2007.

After jurisdiction over abortion is returned to the states, pro-lifers can then begin a state-by-state campaign to criminalize abortion. Not only is this strategy much more practical, they would be much more successful in their efforts this way. Authority over criminal law is constitutionally retained by the states. Unfortunately, however, Congress has federalized a host of ordinary street crimes already covered by state criminal codes. The federal criminal code has over 4,000 separate federal offenses relating to actual crimes like arson and carjacking and spurious crimes like moving birds across state lines to engage in fights and interstate transport of unlicensed dentures. These federal laws should all be repealed. More federal criminal laws and more centralization of power in the federal government are the last things we need.

It’s not a question of “looking the other way while innocents are killed” or “passing the buck on the abortion question”; it is a question of the Constitution, the judicial system, federal power, the role of the federal government, our federal system of government, and the nature of our republic.

Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others. A candidate for office who claims to be pro-life can get a pass on just about anything else. Yet, someone can be pro-life and statist to the core, as many pro-lifers no doubt are. If Obama had a change of heart and began supporting the pro-life cause, he would still be a radical leftist unworthy of anyone’s vote or support. I submit to you that I would rather have someone in elective office who was indifferent to the abortion issue, yet was a strict constitutionalist and advocate of liberty and limited government, than the typical pro-life, red-state fascist.

I have no doubt that these statements will be unpopular with many pro-lifers. But as we re-evaluate what the last 37 years of political maneuvering on the abortion issue has gained us, it would be impossible to realistically ascribe any overarching success to our cause. While we’ve seen shifts in public sentiment (which seem often to correspond inversely to the perceived pro or anti-abortion stance of the party in power) we have not made substantial, lasting gains. While we’ve experienced many small victories, we’ve also encountered numerous setbacks. Let me be absolutely clear – the babies saved by the efforts of America’s pro-lifers are in no way inconsequential – but while we save hundreds, or even thousands, millions continue to die. The big picture needs to be re-focused.

Perhaps it’s time to consider that a big reason our efforts have failed is that our government was constructed in such a way to be resistant to our approach.  Our Constitution demands that the abortion issue be addressed by the states, not the federal government  – regardless of what happened at the Supreme Court. The possibility of making real progress at the state level is very real – it admits the kind of grassroots effort that can truly make a difference. And legislation has been introduced by men like Dr. Paul which would make state-level abortion legislation a reality, IF he could find co-sponsors for his bills. 

As important as it is to return this issue to the states, that alone won’t be enough. Vance offers a sobering analysis:

Since the chance of the federal government or a significant number of state governments criminalizing abortion is a big, fat zero, only an appeal to religion or morality can truly stop abortion, not electing a Republican majority in Congress, not electing a Republican president so he can appoint more pro-life justices to the Supreme Court, not the federal judicial system, not amending the Constitution, not lobbying, not protests, not marches, and not by centralizing more power in Washington DC.

I disagree with Vance that we couldn’t see big victories in a significant number of states. But we’ve been used by both parties as a political gambit for so long, we’ve almost forgotten how to vote based on anything else. And meanwhile, our republic is falling apart around us. 

We may not all agree that the form of government we have is the best one possible. We may believe that in an ideal world, an imperial edict banning abortion would be the most effective way of stopping it. But the fact remains that we live in a republic, not an empire, and the will of the people remains divided on this issue.  If we work within the system and bring our efforts to a more local level rather than trying to establish an unpopular national decree, we stand a better chance of victory.

Or, we could just keep doing what we’re doing. Something tells me if that’s the course we choose, we won’t have much to show for our efforts in another 37 years. 

 

By

Steve Skojec serves as the Director of Community Relations for a professional association. He is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, where he earned a BA in Communications and Theology. His passions include writing, photography, social media, and an avid appreciation of science fiction. Steve lives in Northern Virginia with his wife Jamie and their five children.

  • Eoin Suibhne

    There was an awful lot of nonsense in that “profile,” but this statement shows the utter ignorance of the author regarding Ron Paul: “believes the state is the ultimate authority.”

  • Austin

    Overturn Roe vs Wade and throw the issue back to the State Legislatures where it belongs. Yes, a couple of states may go wrong on this, but the vast majority of States will do the right thing and restrict abortion. They may not restrict it to the degree that I would want, but just because we cannot achieve total 100% victory does not mean that we should give up.

    I like Ron Paul and voted for him. He is far from perfect but much better than what we have had in the White House in recent years.

  • Jim B

    What a load of pap. This is similar to a discussion I was recently in with one of those “peace & justice” Catholics who told me that wasn’t pro-life to endorse Scott Brown in the recent MA election (despite being the 41st vote that would kill Obamacare and its built in abortion & euthanasia) because he supports abortion and “torture”. Like it or not because of the satanic opposition we are forced daily to fight you pick your tactical battles in this pro-life movement and you take what you can get an be grateful for it.

    Let me start with this:

    “Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others.”

    DUH – maybe because that’s what the CHURCH teaches…

    “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

  • Jason Negri

    Very good post, Steve, and not just because I happen to agree with you and Vance. It could lead to some great discussion here, though I’m not seeing much reasonable opposition yet. The criticisms leveled thus far are hardly cogent ones.

  • Brian English

    “Dr. Paul

  • Steve Skojec

    Hi Jim B.,

    “Pro-lifers foolishly make the mistake of elevating the issue of abortion above all others.”

    DUH – maybe because that’s what the CHURCH teaches…

    I understand why this comment gives pause (I don’t get the impression Vance is a Catholic, by the way) but read in context it shouldn’t be a stumbling block. While abortion IS more important than other lesser issues, the strategies for ending abortion mean that voting directly on whether or not a candidate is pro-life can be counterproductive.

    The example he cites of a candidate who is indifferent to the abortion issue but faithful to the Constitution means that such a candidate would de facto offer a more pro-life outcome than a candidate who claims pro-life as a platform position but is disinclined to take the kind of action necessary to allow real change on the issue. The reason is because it is impossible to impose a lasting federal limit on an issue that is not in the Constitution (and thus not within the authority of the federal government), and which the country is too divided over to support an amendment on. It is quite possible, however, to regulate abortion among the states when put to a direct vote that can’t be challenged by an activist Supreme Court due to the fact that it’s outside that court’s jurisdiction.

    What is this – the Stockholm Syndrome or Projection? What person with ANY common sense WOULDN’T blame those people? It’s not the pro-lifer that are perpetrating the culture of death at every turn.

    While I can’t speak for Vance, I don’t believe he’s trying to mitigate the guilt of those parties. Rather, he’s pointing out that the one constituency that could try to stop pro-abortion legislation consistently undermines its own efforts by following an extra-Constitutional playbook, and by willingly allowing itself to become the political plaything of a disingenuous pro-life platform at the GOP. He points out – rightly – that the GOP majorities over the last decade have been squandered. A SCOTUS decision is unnecessary when the court shouldn’t be hearing the case in the first place – a position which the pro-life justice Antonin Scalia holds.

    That same “peace & justice” Catholic had the audacity to tell me that Brown was just as bad as Obama or Clinton. On that count he may be right – but Brown is one measly vote in the Senate as opposed to the kind of power that Obama’s death machine wields – so a vote for Brown was a tactical win because it stopped (for now) Obamacare. Anyone that can’t discern that is in serious need of conversion in my view. Meanwhile the SS continues it’s work…

    Brown believes that Roe should not be overturned. He is also not the deciding factor in the healthcare debate, he merely defeats the filibuster-proof supermajority. The Dems have had enough votes to pass healthcare all year, and still do. The reason they haven’t succeeded is because their own party is divided on the issue. Don’t buy into the hype.

    Believe me – I’m not a social justice Catholic. But as I learn more about the way the American government was designed to work (as opposed to what it has become) and become convinced that a return to founding principles is necessary for the restoration of the Republic, I realize that the pro-life movement has followed a strategy that fails to respect the due process and checks and balances of our government, and thus dooms them to failure.

    We can’t win by playing the same game as the liberals who got us here. The fact that we think we can overturn Roe in a country so evenly divided on the issue should indicate to us that what logically follows is that the other side will flip it back. Where does it stop? We can’t do this on a federal level without massive public support. The pro-abortion side won a victory because they didn’t respect the law or the powers of government, and they had enough backing in the court of public opinion to get away with it. Do we want to do the same, thus further weakening the system and making our issue that much more vulnerable in the future?

    Think subsidiarity. That’s the path to victory.

  • Brian English

    “The fact that we think we can overturn Roe in a country so evenly divided on the issue should indicate to us that what logically follows is that the other side will flip it back. Where does it stop?”

    This is precisely why the Congressional stripping of jurisdiction is such a bad idea.

    Turnover on the Supreme Court is very slow. If Roe was overturned, it is unlikely it would be reinstated for several years, if not decades.

    On the other hand, Congress can change hands every two years. If you stripped jurisdiction on abortion issues, when the Democrats got back in control, they could reinstate jurisdiction.

    Roe itself has to be overturned to have any degree of finality on this issue.

  • Baron Korf

    If that is going to work so well, then why do we have such a hard time passing informed consent laws, ultrasound laws, etc etc.

  • Steve Skojec

    First of all, the language in Article III that the Paul supporters rely upon HAS NEVER been used to strip appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court in cases involving a recognized constitutional right.

    Because it’s never been used, does that mean it shouldn’t be tried? And let’s not pretend that there’s any sort of unanimous support for a “recognized constitutional right” to Abortion somehow implicit in the 14th Amendment. Jurists on both sides of the political spectrum have admitted that Roe was a terribly decided case that made up a right out of thin air.

    Second, even if we thought it was constitutional, do we want to try to set that precedent? Suppose a subsequent Congress voted to strip the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over Free Exercise cases under the First Amendment?

    Again, I think we have to make a distinction between explicit and assumed implicit Constitutional rights. It’s a lot harder to argue that Congress could legally and within the bounds of their power strip appellate jurisdiction on Free Exercise cases when the language is clear as crystal in the 1st Amendment. I mean, just compare the 1st to the supposed abortion right found in Section 1 of the 14th:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    VS.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The difference between the two is stark, which seems to substantiate the approach in one case quite a lot more than the other. If you’re going to have Congress strip jurisdiction, they’re going to have to do it because the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds and made law on an issue on which the Constitution does not authorize them.

    Third, state courts are obligated to enforce the federal Constitution, so Roe would still be enforced in the state courts.

    Certainly, but with the SCOTUS stripped of jurisdiction on this issue, and lacking any explicit Constitutional language delineating a right to abortion, the federal courts would have nothing to enforce. Roe is a legal decision reading something into the Constitution that isn’t there. What is there to enforce once the jurisdiction that made Roe possible is eliminated?

    Roe is the problem. We need Original Intent Justices on the Supreme Court to resolve that problem.

    It would certainly be easier if Roe could simply be overturned. Even in that case, however, it’s still an issue that would go back to the states for their own decisions. But if Roe were to be overturned, it would take an enormous political carrot off the table. The Democrats use fear of overturning Roe to rally their base, and the Republicans use the promise of overturning Roe to rally theirs. And nothing ever happens. We’re not getting a SCOTUS that will overturn this any time soon. Maybe not ever. In the meantime, we keep voting for any crap-tastic GOP nominee who has a chance at putting a justice on the bench, just on the gamble that it might tip the balance. All the while, we’re putting guys into office who are far from conservative on every other issue. Our country is being destroyed by progressives in both parties and we just keep pulling the lever hoping for a pro-life Jackpot that never materializes. There has to be a better way. I think Ron Paul’s solution is worth a shot.

  • JC

    The point is whether he’s authentically pro-life, and there shouldn’t be any question there.
    I just love the convenient excuses people come up with for not fighting an immediate end to abortion.

    As for the constitutionalism issue, murder is not a federal crime. The 14th Amendment states that the states cannot deprive people of life, liberty or property without due process.

    While I’d be happy in one respect to have a law immediately outlawing abortion at the federal level, that would be an offense against subsidiarity and the Constitution.

  • John Jakubczyk

    Some thoughts from a guy in the trenches.

    1. I suppose that all is fair in love, war and criticizing the pro-life movement and our failure to end this holocaust. I confess that I have not done enough and do not measure up to the arm chair quarterbacks and strategic geniuses that know everything and do nothing.

    2. Mr. Vance appears to be one of these fellows who enjoys pontificating and has no understanding of the reality that is our current political system. Or maybe he does and realizes that while he waxes poetic and stands on the sidelines, he can avoid getting his hands dirty. It is after all easier to critique than to create. Until I read his name today, I had never heard of him or any work he may have done to help the pro-life cause in Florida or elsewhere. While I am always grateful, excited, and happy to see new blood in the movement, i have no time or patience with those who merely criticize the hard work of the many thousands of pro-lifers who give so much to help the mommas and the babies.

    3. If Ron Paul could get Congress to take up the argument re the power of the Supreme court to deny a class of people their right to life, then more power to him. Any way that would stop the killing is something that should be considered. However, the truth is that most people in Washington do not consider the issue a priority – hence one of the reasons for the 37 years of failure.

    4. To address the federal versus state issue. When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it cast it onto the federal scene permanently. Frankly it is now impossible to consider that some states could criminalize abortion and others allow it to remain legal without the whole issue of equal protection coming into play. some constitutional scholars,as well as lawyers who study constitutional law, consider the right to life as recognized in the Declaration of Independence, to be inherent in the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights and applicable to the states in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Both require due process before one’s right to life can be taken away. Right now it seems that the best thing we can do to stop abortion is to be a mighty presence in front of the abortuaries, convince women not to abort, offer clinic workers another way to earn a living, and dry up the business. Maybe if we could stop the federal dollars going to criminal organizations like Planned Parenthood, that would help as well. But one does not stop working at the political level to change the make up of the Congress.

    5. Modern science and medicine confirm what we have always known and what the law at one time prior to Roe recognized: the unborn child in the womb is a human being and therefore a person with certain inalienable rights. Prior to Roe, the state courts acknowledged the rights of unborn children and preserved their rights to maintain actions,protect their property interests as well as giving them redress in the courts. It is the Roe decision that is the aberration in the proper reasoning and analysis of the law. Remember that the law must operate in harmony with right reason.

    6. Finally, the sin of abortion, just like the sin of slavery, has corrupted the land and much prayer, sacrifice and effort by many has been, is, and will be required of us to end this evil. Restoring the law to protect all persons cannot just happen at the state level, although if your state can pass some law to end abortion, you should definitely do it. In other words, it is not an either/or situation. Every effort must be advanced so long as the strategy will work and not give the enemy more leverage against us, the mothers and the children.

    7. Bottom line – what are you personally doing to end this war against the children, against the family, against life itself?

  • Mena

    The pro-life movement has failed miserably to persuade women to not have abortions, to educate women on the evils of abortion, to prevent unwanted pregnancies, to convince doctors to not perform abortions, to effectively counsel women with unwanted pregnancies, to impede promiscuity, and to provide sufficient alternatives to pregnant women considering abortion.

    Mass persuasion and education take place through the public school system and Hollywood, institutions which are firmly in the hands of the pro-death leaders and activists. The system is pro-death, and pro-lifers have no means of mass “persuasion and education” at the present time. They must seek legal and legislative remedies.

    [Prolifers feel that] the solution to the abortion problem is not persuasion, education, or counseling; it is more centralization of power in the federal government

  • Rob H.

    Again, I think we have to make a distinction between explicit and assumed implicit Constitutional rights. It’s a lot harder to argue that Congress could legally and within the bounds of their power strip appellate jurisdiction on Free Exercise cases when the language is clear as crystal in the 1st Amendment. I mean, just compare the 1st to the supposed abortion right found in Section 1 of the 14th:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    VS.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    The difference between the two is stark, which seems to substantiate the approach in one case quite a lot more than the other. If you’re going to have Congress strip jurisdiction, they’re going to have to do it because the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds and made law on an issue on which the Constitution does not authorize them.

    Great point, Steve. Also note that the 14th Amendment specifically gives Congress the power to enforce its provisions, not the SCOTUS:

    The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    For obvious reasons there is no similiar power vested in the 1st Amendment.

  • Brian English

    “Because it’s never been used, does that mean it shouldn’t be tried? And let’s not pretend that there’s any sort of unanimous support for a “recognized constitutional right” to Abortion somehow implicit in the 14th Amendment. Jurists on both sides of the political spectrum have admitted that Roe was a terribly decided case that made up a right out of thin air.”

    It shouldn’t be tried, because it is a waste of time, money and resources.

    Recognition of a right to abortion is not unanimous, but, unfortunately, five people who do recognize that right are sitting on the Supreme Court.

    “Again, I think we have to make a distinction between explicit and assumed implicit Constitutional rights. It’s a lot harder to argue that Congress could legally and within the bounds of their power strip appellate jurisdiction on Free Exercise cases when the language is clear as crystal in the 1st Amendment.”

    Once again, unfortunately, five people who think otherwise are sitting on the Supreme Court.

    Do you really think that a Court that viewed Roe as a constitutional right would rule that it was constitutional to strip it of its appellate jurisdiction over abortion cases? Even if you managed to get past that hurdle, a few years later when the Democrats take back over Congress, restore jurisdiction in abortion cases, and remove jurisdiction in Free Exercise cases, do you really think that same Supreme Court is going to ride to the rescue and say, “It was constitutional for you to strip us of jurisdiction in abortion cases, but it is now unconstitutional for you to strip us of jurisdiction in Free Exercise cases?”

    “Certainly, but with the SCOTUS stripped of jurisdiction on this issue, and lacking any explicit Constitutional language delineating a right to abortion, the federal courts would have nothing to enforce. Roe is a legal decision reading something into the Constitution that isn’t there. What is there to enforce once the jurisdiction that made Roe possible is eliminated?”

    Roe would still be there to be enforced. Removing jurisdiction for future abortion cases would not retroactively reverse Roe.

    “But if Roe were to be overturned, it would take an enormous political carrot off the table. The Democrats use fear of overturning Roe to rally their base, and the Republicans use the promise of overturning Roe to rally theirs.”

    But these same Republicans and Democrats are going to pass a law stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion cases?

    “We’re not getting a SCOTUS that will overturn this any time soon.”

    If Obama is defeated in 2012, and we get a large enough Republican majority in the Senate to allow for the defection of a couple of the RINOs, we could have such a Court within five years.

  • Brian English

    Are you kidding me? That is the only point.

  • RK

    If Obama is defeated in 2012, and we get a large enough Republican majority in the Senate to allow for the defection of a couple of the RINOs, we could have such a Court within five years.

    If……..pigs could fly. Putting our faith in the Supreme Court is a waste of time. Even if it worked it reinforces the power of the Court.

    Ron Paul’s proposal is realistic and ought to be supported by anyone who is for limited government and against abortion.

  • Mark

    RK, in 2008, 66% of women and 62% of men voted. Of those women, 56% voted for Obama … so good luck with that “limited government” thing.

    As you say, “If……..pigs could fly”

    Brian English’s approach is far more realistic and hopeful.

  • Steve Skojec

    Brian,

    I’m not a lawyer or a Constitutional expert, but I think there’s something wrong with what you’re telling me.

    Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    “The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    Congress has the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. Are you telling me that the SCOTUS would then have the final say on whether such removal was Constitutional? Wouldn’t that defeat the point of Congress having this limiting power?

    It shouldn’t be tried, because it is a waste of time, money and resources.

    And the past 37 years of the time, money and resources that have been poured out by the pro-life movement hoping beyond hope that a GOP President will stack the court in their favor has been well spent?

    There have been no few opportunities for this to happen. When Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided, most of the judges on the bench were GOP nominees. All of our eggs are in a basket with a gaping hole at the bottom.

    Roe would still be there to be enforced. Removing jurisdiction for future abortion cases would not retroactively reverse Roe.

    But what is Roe? You say states have to uphold the federal Constitution, but there has never been anything added to the federal Constitution that constitutes a right to abortion. Do states also have to enforce all federal case law pertaining to the Constitution, even when the authority of the federal courts on a given issue has been stripped?

    Something is very illogical in all of this.

    But these same Republicans and Democrats are going to pass a law stripping the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over abortion cases?

    At the Congressional level this is a possibility. At the presidential level, abortion is way too big of a political football to let go of.

    If Obama is defeated in 2012, and we get a large enough Republican majority in the Senate to allow for the defection of a couple of the RINOs, we could have such a Court within five years.

    And you think Ron Paul is being unrealistic?

  • Steve Skojec

    John,

    I don’t in the slightest discount the work of people in the trenches. Activism is critical at the local level, particularly at the clinic level, or in the Birthright centers, etc.

    Activism at the political level on the other hand is, in my opinion, vastly overrated. Particularly when you have a movement as divided as pro-lifers are on tactics. My wife and I were involved, for example, in an effort to get a “Choose Life” license plate in Virginia, sponsored by then state senator (and now Attorney General) Ken Cuccinelli.

    What should have been a simple process was a nightmare. There were so many strong, diverging personalities, so many people out of touch with the way things need to be done (as opposed to the ways they might have been done in the 60s and 70s), so much opposition from people in power in the diocese that we pretty much just quietly exited the process.

    Similarly, I interviewed last year for a position directing social media at one of the major pro-life non-profits. I was extremely unimpressed with the group’s approach, reputation among past employees (as opposed to their public reputation), and lack of professionalism. One thing those interviewing did admit to me, however, was that they recognized that the figureheads of the pro-life movement had become polarizing and counterproductive, and that without a willingness to shatter the insular culture and try new approaches, the movement was in serious trouble.

    I agree with much of what you wrote in your comments above. But one thing I will say is that armchair quarterbacking becomes a real risk when a movement lacks the coherency, clarity and direction that draws in new recruits. I’ve prayed in front of clinics and marched on Washington, and though I’ve never been much given to activism, I’d be a lot more prone to it if I believed I was part of something that was getting somewhere.

    People of my generation don’t even know what it’s like to live in an America without Roe. We are unfamiliar with the approaches of the Civil Rights movement and the activism that characterized the latter decades of the 20th Century. We are, however, much more aware of the new methods for the production and distribution of information, and even protest. The value of this shift is evident in the success of things like the “Virtual March for Life.”

    This fight has gone on since before we were born, and some of us, anyway, think it’s time for new leadership and new strategies. The resurgence of American federalism as exemplified in the Tea Party movement (a very young movement, by some accounts) gives me hope that new tactics like this might have some chance at success.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see how it can make things any worse to try.

  • Ryan Haber

    Mena made two comments that give me cause for pause.

    The strategy [of using the federal government to supercede the state governments inappropriately] worked for the pro-death camp; Don’t knock the strategy of the winning team.

    “Winning” at all costs is not the goal. “What profit a man if he gain the world, but lose his soul?” (Mt 16:26). It is a principle of our faith that the law of man is to emulate the Law of God. It is another principle of our faith that God demands order and justice – what we call in practice the rule of law. St. Thomas More is said to have defended the rule of law even when it was to be manipulated by the devil himself. Because our enemies throw democracy and constitutional rule out the window to achieve their wicked ends in no way legitimates doing so ourselves; nor will doing so help us to achieve our authentic, complete goal: the creation of a just order governed by laws that protect the sanctity of every human life.

    Again:

    Mass persuasion and education take place through the public school system and Hollywood, institutions which are firmly in the hands of the pro-death leaders and activists. The system is pro-death, and pro-lifers have no means of mass “persuasion and education” at the present time. They must seek legal and legislative remedies.

    Yes, that’s true, but truth has a power that cannot be constrained by the powers of this world. That is not spiritual wishy thinking. It is a hard, empirical fact. Witness the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, preceded by the breakdown of the power of its propaganda machine. The spark that set that blaze afire is commonly ascribed to the visit of JPII to Poland, the closing Mass of which some 3 million people attended. The official media reported that a few thousand showed up, and since 10% of the national population had been present, EVERYONE knew, beyond a doubt, that they were being lied to baldly.

    Movements like Project Rachel, coupled with Silent No More, need to be nurtured, especially by the Church. Unborn babies cannot vote and will never be heeded. They shouldn’t need to be heeded. They should be getting nurtured and growing. It is the job of their moms and dads and doctors to look out for them. Currently, many men and women in the US support or passively permit a right to murder unborn babies because they cannot see those babies and because they have been sold lies about the nature of those babies and the harm done to the parents of aborted children. Silent No More and similar groups that can be started blow the lid off of the lies and propaganda that abortions help women. That’s why the supposedly “pro-woman” movement denies women access to information about their “healthcare choices” and certainly does not want them to see sonograms.

    But truth, that is the nature of reality apprehended, will not be constrained – rather it is the constraint to which everything else must yield, or ultimately crumb. That is because truth is ultimately the mind of God, the word of God, Jesus Christ. Truth is king, and in the end, will be obeyed.

    We who serve Him have no need to fear or scheme, and certainly not to fight each other – only to do our best to do our part, and to keep praying the Kingdom come.

  • RK

    RK, in 2008, 66% of women and 62% of men voted. Of those women, 56% voted for Obama … so good luck with that “limited government” thing.

    As you say, “If……..pigs could fly”

    Brian English’s approach is far more realistic and hopeful.

    Oh, good. And your brand of “realism” has been tried for almost four decades. Good luck with that “hopeful” thing.

    I don’t know if you caught your boy, Scott Brown, with Barbara Walters the other day. He finally showed his true colors and let it be known that he was an unambiguous supporter of a woman’s choice. Realism, baby!

  • JC

    4. To address the federal versus state issue. When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it cast it onto the federal scene permanently.

    True, but the question is how. It would be disproportionate to say that abortion is a federal crime while murder is not. The role of the federal government would be to ensure that state laws adhere to the 14th amendment.

  • JC

    Are you kidding me? That is the only point.

    Not the point of the present discussion, Brian. The topic is whether Ron Paul is truly committed to the pro-life cause.

    I think that Rick Santorum’s so-called partial birth abortion ban was a huge waste of time and resources that did absolutely nothing but solidify a standard for legalized abortion. Do I question Santorum’s pro-life credentials? No (though I do question them on his endorsement of Specter for re-election).

    So, the incrementalists say that radical pro-lifers are contrary to the cause because we aren’t being pro-lifers. Radical pro-lifers say that incrementalists aren’t interested in ending abortion but just furthering the Republican Party’s political agenda.

    Incrementalists say it’s a waste of time to try to outlaw abortion, while radical pro-lifers say, with John Paul II, that that attitude is a species of despair.

    Then there are all those pesky issues like contraception, embryonic stem cell research, conscientious objection, and vaccines derived from aborted babies.

    Where does that leave us?

  • Brian English

    “If……..pigs could fly. Putting our faith in the Supreme Court is a waste of time. Even if it worked it reinforces the power of the Court.”

    Well, it is called the Supreme Court for a reason. Overturning Roe would actually represent an acknowledgment by the Court that its power is limited.

    “Ron Paul’s proposal is realistic and ought to be supported by anyone who is for limited government and against abortion.”

    Ron Paul’s proposal is completely unrealistic. How many votes has the Sanctity of Life Act ever received? Getting the necessary votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe is far more probable.

  • Steve Skojec

    Mena made two comments that give me cause for pause.

    They gave me pause as well. They are perfectly indicative of what I’ve been cautioning against.

    Thank you for responding, Ryan. You’ve said what needs to be said.

  • JC

    By “we aren’t being pro-lifers,” I meant “We aren’t being ‘ragmatic”.

  • Steve Skojec

    Ron Paul’s proposal is completely unrealistic. How many votes has the Sanctity of Life Act ever received? Getting the necessary votes on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe is far more probable.

    But Brian, how many people even know that the measure exists? We have moved so far from federalism that people only see one way out. Again, this is why the return to the ideology of the founders that seems to be gaining popularity among the Tea Party movement (and other, more loosely aligned conservatives) is significant: if the American people understand the way their government is supposed to work, maybe they’ll begin to insist that it had better start.

    Despite his pro-abortion views, I think Scott Brown was the first shot across the bow in that battle. He gained a great deal of support just by saying that the seat didn’t belong to Kennedy, but to the people.

    There are two major paths this nation can head down: the progressivist, big-government, quasi-socialist path that will lead to greater immorality, economic insecurity, and collapse; or the federalist movement, which seeks to reinstate the vision of the founders, limit government, restrain powers, reduce foreign interventionism, impose economic restrictions, and stick to the principles in the founding documents. The abortion solution, such as we might be able to obtain, is to be found in this latter path. Bigger, more centralized government is not the answer.

    John Jakubczyk was right when he said “the sin of abortion, just like the sin of slavery, has corrupted the land and much prayer, sacrifice and effort by many has been, is, and will be required of us to end this evil.” Gross immorality of this kind can only accelerate the collapse that is already beginning in other areas, like the financial sector.

  • Brian English

    “Congress has the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS. Are you telling me that the SCOTUS would then have the final say on whether such removal was Constitutional? Wouldn’t that defeat the point of Congress having this limiting power?”

    This has only been interpreted to allow Congress to limit jurisdiction on legislation it passes. It has never been used to strip the Court of jurisdiction to hear cases involving a recognized constitutional right.

    Since the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, who else would pass on whether the jurisdiction stripping was appropriate? If they say it was unconstitutional, what happens next? That is the problem with approaches like jurisdiction stripping and state nullification — they create the potential for a constitutional crisis that, in the end, would be more harmful to the pro-life movement.

    “And the past 37 years of the time, money and resources that have been poured out by the pro-life movement hoping beyond hope that a GOP President will stack the court in their favor has been well spent?

    There have been no few opportunities for this to happen. When Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided, most of the judges on the bench were GOP nominees. All of our eggs are in a basket with a gaping hole at the bottom.”

    We are a 2,000 year-old Church that has endured centuries of persecution. An evil lasting 37 years is supposed to discourage me? Slavery existed in this country for 100 years (and for over 100 years before the nation was founded). Despite the Civil War, the Civil Rights marches were necessary 100 years later.

    I am glad you mentioned Casey, which demonstrates that having a pro-life president is not enough. If Robert Bork had been confirmed in 1987 instead of Anthony Kennedy, Casey would have been decided differently and Roe likely would have been overturned. The lack of a few more GOP Senators in 1987 made all the difference in the world.

    “Do states also have to enforce all federal case law pertaining to the Constitution, even when the authority of the federal courts on a given issue has been stripped?”

    Roe, Doe and Casey would still be binding interpretations of the United States Constitution.

  • Brian English

    “At the Congressional level this is a possibility. At the presidential level, abortion is way too big of a political football to let go of.”

    So what happens when the president decides to hang on to his football and vetoes the jurisdiction stripping legislation? Are you going to have a Congress that is so pro-life that it could override the veto?

    “And you think Ron Paul is being unrealistic?”

    Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Get me two more Original Intent Justices and then we will see what happens.

  • Brian English

    “Not the point of the present discussion, Brian. The topic is whether Ron Paul is truly committed to the pro-life cause.”

    No, the primary focus of the comment was the rant that the pro-life movement has been a big waste of time and that Ron Paul has the real solution.

    I do not question Paul’s pro-life status. I just think his approach is doomed to failure.

    “So, the incrementalists say that radical pro-lifers are contrary to the cause because we aren’t being pro-lifers. Radical pro-lifers say that incrementalists aren’t interested in ending abortion but just furthering the Republican Party’s political agenda.”

    I think some of the radical pro-lifers allow their hatred of the GOP to lead them to pursue highly unrealistic goals. Keep 1987 in mind when you look at these issues.

  • Brian English

    “There are two major paths this nation can head down: the progressivist, big-government, quasi-socialist path that will lead to greater immorality, economic insecurity, and collapse; or the federalist movement, which seeks to reinstate the vision of the founders, limit government, restrain powers, reduce foreign interventionism, impose economic restrictions, and stick to the principles in the founding documents. The abortion solution, such as we might be able to obtain, is to be found in this latter path. Bigger, more centralized government is not the answer.”

    I do not see why you think the overturning of Roe and its progeny would somehow be a blow to federalism. The overturning of Roe would be an acknowledgment that the Constitution has a limited scope.

    Original Intent Judges are important because they understand what federalism is, and their impact would be felt far beyond the abortion issue.

  • Mark

    “I don’t know if you caught your boy, Scott Brown, with Barbara Walters the other day.” – RK

    Scott Brown is hardly my boy, and no I don’t watch your girl, Barbara Walters.

    Be honest, you’re just angry because you incorrectly claimed that the election in MA was a “ruse” and that “healthcare would pass regardless of who wins”

    I do have to give you 3rd party guys credit for one thing, however.. no matter how wrong you are or how great your defeat, you never seem to lose any confidence or feeling of moral and intellectual superiority.

    You could either vote for President Santorum (ie), who would place a pro-lifer on the SCOTUS and Roe would be overturned very soon, or you could do something into the wind that my father never spoke highly of and support your 2% candidate.

  • RK

    While it is true that Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign didn’t generate significant voter support, it is also true that he had an impact on several fronts. His Campaign for Liberty has supported several candidates for political office around the country. The Tea Party was started by his presidential campaign and has spawned a nationwide movement which has significantly affected several campaigns, including Scott Brown’s successful U.S. Senate campaign.

    It is unknown if Paul will run for president in 2012. If he does it is likely that he will be more successful than he was in 2008. Perhaps the greatest measure of success for him is that his ideas on several issues have gained traction and are part of the national conversation.

    Republican party members like nothing about Ron Paul because he threatens the status quo. This fact alone should make us consider what he stands for. He is an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He has never performed an abortion and says that he has never encountered a medical situation that could have possibly required an abortion.

  • Mena

    Ryan and Steve:

    You may not like reality, but centralization of power in the federal government is reality—to the detriment of individual states. That is the present day “rule of law.”

    And that centralization of power at the federal level is what presently enables a million plus babies to be freely slaughtered in every state across the United States, as legally sanctioned by Roe v. Wade. This same federal power can be used to shut down abortion, in precisely the same way.

    You have no choice but to admit that the winning strategy of the pro-death camp is the winning strategy to date. And it’s a fact that the pro-life camp can just as easily use that same national strategy to ban abortion at the federal level, thus ending America’s holocaust.

    Even though I fully embrace federalism, I don’t care about federalism at the moment, for federalism hasn’t existed in the U.S. for 80 years, and your plans for ending abortion would first necessitate the reinstitution of federalism, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. There aren’t enough lawmakers who have the vision/education to even desire that to happen, much less make it happen. So, you’re working on a plan that would take another 80 years to implement.

  • Mena

    And more to Ryan and Steve…

    Truth is powerless when it has no distribution system to reach the masses. And right now in America, the good guys aren’t controlling the distribution system, which is the public schools and Hollywood. Why the hell America’s christians didn’t think to grab the public schools and media is beyond me. We are supposedly about instructing the nations in righteousness, but then we sat by and let the pagans grab the institutions of mass persuasion and education. Ugh.

    As for the Catholic Church, it has enough trouble educating its own members. Today’s best system of education/training is schools and media. While our beloved Church is finally beginning to use the tools of mass media, we’re a generation behind the pagans, who have effectively trained millions to hate good, deride the Church, and live reckless personal lives.

    Currently, many men and women in the US support or passively permit a right to murder unborn babies because they cannot see those babies and because they have been sold lies about the nature of those babies and the harm done to the parents of aborted children. Silent No More and similar groups that can be started blow the lid off of the lies and propaganda that abortions help women.

    I agree. But all that life-changing truth has no distribution system, so it is suppressed and sequestered off from ever reaching the masses. Yet Planned Parenthood is practically writing the curriculum for 100 million U.S. school children. They win, because they control the education system by which people’s thoughts and brains are formed.

    That’s why the supposedly “pro-woman” movement denies women access to information about their “healthcare choices” and certainly does not want them to see sonograms.

    The problem is not with truth. The problem for christians is that we didn’t gain control over the institutions of mass persuasion and education, and whoever controls the schools controls the world.

  • Steve Skojec

    Brian,

    I got in touch with a friend on Capitol Hill who has worked on this legislation to help clear up some of the jurisdictional questions. He writes:

    Jurisdiction is granted in 28 USC 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258. HR 2533 modifies those sections of US code, in accordance with the Constitution. The ONLY reason the Court has appellate jurisdiction in these certain cases is because of those empowering statutes.

    So the argument, he says, “that the Court could rule it unconstitutional to remove some of the powers which Congress gave the Court in the first place” isn’t valid. He compares it to objecting to a proposed constitutional amendment by saying, “But that’s unconstitutional!”

    He goes on:

    Also look at HR 539. It would attack Roe and other cases in a slightly different way, but still stripping jurisdiction. It also has some findings regarding interpretation of Article III Section 2, and a section at the end that eliminates the binding precedent.

    …about Roe being a binding precedent, stare decisis is traditionally observed but it’s not required and there is no penalty for not observing it. It’s a judicial custom but particularly onerous is situations like this where the verdict is so patently unjust. Roberts himself just made some interesting comments about stare decisis… Even if the Court tried to insist on stare decisis in the aftermath of jurisdiction stripping, it could not keep a state government from passing an anti-abortion law, nor could such law be challenged in any federal court if HR 2533 were enacted into law.

    My friend confirms what I suspected. If there are any Constitutional lawyers who can weigh in, I hope they’ll join the fray.

  • Steve Skojec

    You may not like reality, but centralization of power in the federal government is reality—to the detriment of individual states. That is the present day “rule of law.”

    Centralization of power is directly contrary to the founding principles of our nation. It is also the leading cause of many of the problems that are threatening America’s future. Because politicians have for too long shown a disregard for law does not mean we should use their playbook. Ends do not justify means.

    Truth is powerless when it has no distribution system to reach the masses. And right now in America, the good guys aren’t controlling the distribution system, which is the public schools and Hollywood. Why the hell America’s christians didn’t think to grab the public schools and media is beyond me. We are supposedly about instructing the nations in righteousness, but then we sat by and let the pagans grab the institutions of mass persuasion and education. Ugh.

    America’s Christians didn’t think of it, Mena, because they already had control. Read up on Alexander Gramsci, however, and the Frankfurt School, and you’ll see the specific agenda at work to take over these organs.

    Gramsci, by the way, was a godless Communist, not a pagan. He saw that Communism by oppression wouldn’t work, and that the only way to spread Marxism was by undermining the Christian roots of a given civilization. He, and the members of the Frankfurt School, decided that the way to do this was through art, media, and education.

    And many of them set up shop here in the U.S.

  • Brian English

    “Jurisdiction is granted in 28 USC 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258. HR 2533 modifies those sections of US code, in accordance with the Constitution. The ONLY reason the Court has appellate jurisdiction in these certain cases is because of those empowering statutes.”

    These provisions only deal with the procedure for review of all cases decided by lower federal and state courts. The Constitution itself provides the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution.

    These provisions were also only passed in 1948. The Supreme Court certainly had appellate jurisdiction prior to that date, so it is incorrect to say appellate jurisdiction only exists because of these enpowering statutes.

    Even if your friend was right about being able to strip jurisdiction, and certainly there are lawyers and law professors who would argue he is (go to volokh.com and do a search for “jurisdiction stripping” to see some of the arguments) what happens when the Democrats take over again, restore jurisdiction in abortion cases, and strip jurisdiction in Free Exercise cases? The very arguments we used would be used against us. There are unintended consequences to the jurisdiction stripping approach that I do not think people are focusing on.

    “…about Roe being a binding precedent, stare decisis is traditionally observed but it’s not required and there is no penalty for not observing it. It’s a judicial custom but particularly onerous is situations like this where the verdict is so patently unjust. Roberts himself just made some interesting comments about stare decisis…”

    The stare decisis effect of Roe could only be ignored by the Supreme Court. Lower federal and state courts are bound to follow the case until the Supreme Court says it is no longer good law. The interesting comments about stare decisis by Roberts, which have the pro-abortion crowd running scared, are precisely why we should be concentrating on getting more Original Intent votes on the Court instead of relying on legislative tricks that may or may not work.

    “Even if the Court tried to insist on stare decisis in the aftermath of jurisdiction stripping, it could not keep a state government from passing an anti-abortion law, nor could such law be challenged in any federal court if HR 2533 were enacted into law.”

    But challenges to the constitutionality of the law could still be made in the state courts, and those courts would have to enforce Roe (this is why Professor Volokh believes jurisdiction stripping would be futile).

    We need to overrule Roe, not circumvent it.

  • Steve Skojec

    We need to overrule Roe, not circumvent it.

    But that brings us back to the original problem. Roe is THE litmus test for SCOTUS nominees; since we have so many PLINOs (Pro-Lifers in Name Only) in Congress, you’d need even more than a supermajority of supposed pro-lifers just to get a nominee through. Otherwise, you’d risk too many defections on the issue from pols who are supposedly on our side.

    The SCOTUS solution hasn’t happened, and unless there’s a massive shift in public sentiment in this country, it won’t. We’re too polarized to get this done through existing methods.

    The fact that despite your objections the argument can be made that jurisdiction stripping might work means it should be an approach that is tried. If there is a possibility that we’ll see this issue flip back and forth, it’s a chance we should take – it’s still a much bigger mark of progress than nominal victories that don’t save many lives. Four years of jurisdictional stripping, plus however much time it takes to re-introduce and pass legislation putting it back…how many lives might that save? At 1.5 million/year, we’re talking 6 million?

    I’d take the chance for 6 million. Wouldn’t you?

    And there’s also the stigma of getting into a business that may or may not be outlawed every time Congress changes hands. Not a secure economic future for abortion providers. At the very least, legislative instability on this issue would force a serious legal battle on how it should be dealt with.

    It would be something. Waiting for Roe to be overturned is like hoping you’ll win the lottery to get out of debt. It could happen in theory, but the odds are so stacked against it that it’s an extremely impractical thing to hang our hopes on.

    And if neither of these options is viable, which some might conclude after reading all of this, it might mean that a political solution is simply out of reach until some miracle brings about conversion on a massive scale.

    Maybe we need less activists and more contemplatives. I wish I knew.

  • Mark

    “Why the hell America’s christians didn’t think to grab the public schools and media is beyond me” – Mena

    I think the answer to this interesting question may lie in the basic worldview differences of “conservative Christians” and “secular liberals”

    Conservative Christians (parents, priests, nuns etc) teach their children to put their heads down, work hard, fulfill responsibilities, always live as though God is watching and lead by example… talk is cheap.

    Most secular liberals on the other hand believe that the greatest good is egalitarianism. Since this concept is counterintuitive to human nature, much brainwahsing is required. They HAD to take control of the public schools (especially universities where mom and dad couldn’t interfere) and the MSM to promote their message because the basic premise is almost always defeated by real world experiences.

    “But that brings us back to the original problem. Roe is THE litmus test for SCOTUS nominees; since we have so many PLINOs (Pro-Lifers in Name Only) in Congress, you’d need even more than a supermajority of supposed pro-lifers just to get a nominee through” – Steve

    Steve, I appreciate your position and just for the record, I like Ron Paul and believe he is sincerely pro-life…. but… I think what is being overlooked here is the great momentum shift among Americans over the past 14 years from pro-choice to pro-life. In 1996, it broke down as 56% pro-choice and 33% pro-life. As of May ’09, Americans describe themselves as 51% pro-life and 42% pro-choice.

    Both momentum and truth are on our side.

  • Brian English

    Why would all of these PLINOs pass the jurisdiction stripping statute?

    A jurisdiction stripping statute would also have to: (1) pass both houses of Congress; (2) avoid a veto or else have the ability to override a veto; and (3) fight off legal challenges.

    Once it was established law, it would still have the problems of: (1) state courts still being obligated to enforce Roe; (2) a change in control of Congress resulting in a repeal; and (3) jurisdiction striping being used against the pro-life movement.

    You really think getting one or two more Original Intent judges on the Supreme Court would be more difficult than dealing with those issues?

    There have also been several references in this thread to federalism, and that raises another benefit of approaching this issue through the Supreme Court. Original Intent judges will have an impact well beyond the abortion issue as far as limiting the scope of the power of the federal government.

  • Mena

    Steve, centralized power is contrary to founding principles, but founding principles vanish into history once no one knows them or cares to enforce them.

    So, you’re stuck again with reality, and reality is that *until* you go found a second America that has a foolproof form of federalism that can’t be so easily eroded, the rest of us have to work with the system now in play. It’s not about “ends” and “means,” but rather agreeing to deal with reality as it exists today.

    Next, I know about Gramsci, and all I can do is throw my hands in the air and wonder why christians weren’t able to be so committed and ingenious about instructing the masses. Is this not our very calling from God??

    How can it be that Christians didn’t know that the way to educate the masses in Christian virtues and reason was through art, media, and education? We should have been the ones to proactively grab and shape the institutions of media and public education so as to instruct the nations in righteousness and sound reason.

    Applause for the clever commies. Boos to the christians for being outsmarted and outmaneuvered. And now we’re all paying the price in the loss of our freedoms, economy, and way of life.

  • Hilary

    Steve!

    Glad to see you’re still alive and can remember where your keyboard is.

MENU