Tough "Roe" to Hoe
October 1, 2021 | View PDF
I suspect most Alabama Gazette readers share my distain for (non-defensive) abortion as much as any other premeditated murder. Those who endure my lengthy columns know where I stand on the issue as a legal matter. Apropos to open this 22nd Anniversary issue column with thanks for the honour to be included in this wonderful paper which allows such dissenting views on ‘long standing’ precedents. Problems of this sort persist aided and abetted by jurists (like Chief Justice Roberts installed by big-govt. Republicans) who care more for adhering to precedents instead of fidelity to the letter and Spirit of our Constitution. Wise rulings are driven by logic and reason applied to the originalists’ (to shamelessly evoke Justice Scalia’s nomenclature) text, not the zeitgeist and desired wealth transfers of the moment. This permits deleterious law to persist and generate greater harm - in this case making Roe a much longer, tougher, bloody precedent to hoe…
Roe v. Wade is one of DC’s more tangible assaults on State sovereignty. I’m a pragmatist on the issue. If the people of a State want to allow murder in Massachusetts and not in Mississippi, it is NOT a federal offense. The definition and enforcement of murder isn’t authorised to the federal government. I’m not foolish enough to think banning murder will end all the killing (even less so the immediate and tangible murder of a defenseless child inside or just outside a womb posing no threat to the mother) we’ve observed, but I want the freedom to possibly live in a State which doesn’t subsidize murdering one’s own child. If you kill your own child, do it on your own purse. It is not a lot to ask federal judges to ban taking my treasure to subsidize killings I and many others find reprehensible. This is an integral part of securing blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity – born and unborn.
US District Court Judge Myron Thompson is no stranger to reinserting the federal govt. into the abortion business. A more recent and notable of Thompson’s opinings was his 2015 Planned Parenthood ruling further assaulting civil rights of citizens who do not wish to subsidize those committing infanticide of their children. Reason Staff Editor Elizabeth Nolan Brown [10/28/15] wrote, “Alabama must restore the contract with Planned Parenthood as a Medicaid provider, at least for now, because Alabama offered no reason whatsoever for the sudden defunding, the state was likely in violation of federal Medicaid law, which requires letting patients see any provider that accepts Medicaid unless the state establishes that they're not qualified. Providers, of course, are not generally obligated to take Medicaid patients, and many don't because of low reimbursement rates. But under federal law, Medicaid patients have ‘freedom of choice’ among qualified Medicaid providers.”
Many still ask why the Hyde amendment (prohibiting use of federal funds for abortion except cases where the mother's life is in danger or pregnancy results from incest/rape) doesn’t apply to this ruling. Hyde addressed a symptom; the source of the problem is unconstitutional federal programs/policies like Medicare/Medicaid imposed by extremists decades ago. In a world of ‘fungiblity’ Hyde doesn’t matter. Alabama Medicaid Agency records show $4,351 (Thompson’s 2015 order stated $5,600) paid for services to patients at Planned Parenthood's Alabama clinics over the last two years in Mike Cason’s Al.com report; payments were mostly for contraceptive services and did not include abortions.
Some assert Thompson reinforced Jane Doe's right to seek family planning services at qualified providers of choice - which is absurd. Nothing has been done to deny Jane’s right - she (or any private donor who wishes to subsidize Jane) may purchase whatever service and/or provider however they see fit. Thompson’s poor training/understanding of the letter and Spirit of the Constitution fails to protect the civil rights of US citizens in general NOT to subsidize Jane. States as the sovereign unit (who may also authorize local governments to act) may fund/subsidize abortions, fetal tissue, etc. but Alabama does not. Private expenditure of time and effort may also occur, some follow their conscience to take those who choose killing their child to locales which will perform this service; others follow their conscience to discourage killing and promote adoption, financial help in raising children of mothers often young, inexperienced and of meager means for the task. This ‘freedom of choice’ to devote one’s time, money and effort to the manner of assistance they prefer has been usurped for the modern ‘choice’ movement more interested in imposing their preferred result and have others pay for their desired end. Recent changes in Texas legislation could be more wisely handled under ‘accessory to murder’ statutes; those who find the empowering of private citizens problematic to enforce this matter were noticeably silent when Mondale Act 6th Amendment violations destroyed many lives in trumped-up claims of child abuse/assault without the ability to face one’s accuser.
I’d like to observe those who abhor stealing/taking the property right to one’s body also disapprove murdering squatters or ones refusing rightful eviction from their property. I pray most would also find ‘hired guns’ abhorrent who do it for those too weak or squeamish to commit the murder themselves. It seems those screaming the loudest for rent forgiveness worried about their lives are the same ones screaming to evict ‘squatters’ from their property. Isn’t it just as wrong to force owners of a building to host a squatter without their consent (as the 3rd Amendment asserts) or compensation as forcing a mother to host an unwanted squatter? We have courts, laws, etc. to decide and accomplish this less unilaterally; at one time the church and other private entities played a huge role in reducing abortions and burden of getting unplanned/unwanted lives from others’ body/property humanely. Those who have no problem mandating unwanted injections may be OK with a woman being forced to endure the unwanted injection from a rapist; some find BOTH despicable. Nonetheless, if a govt. mandates an individual(s) suffering either of these forced results, they are obliged to compensate for the consequences…
Myron Thompson has already shown great disregard for individuals’ civil right to property, removing homeowners from property they held legal title to so others could live in their home - i.e., don’t expect any rational relief there. If this Judge were to make the case that the mother and child have rights to life and property in our State, perhaps our so-called ‘great legal minds’ may accomplish something more righteous. How much has our State wasted these past decades in legal challenges hoeing the unconstitutional Roe precedent? Can we at least respect the mother’s and child’s rights enough to provide resources to something (more in keeping with Solomon’s wisdom) which benefit both?
Because Myron Thompson had no regard for their civil rights, property owners never received the allowance for having to accommodate unwanted lives on their property, so it is unlikely this federal judge will care about young (likely of poor means) mothers and unborn children to advance a more tangible public good (reduced murders, offsetting the burden of addressing unwanted births for mother and child) but VERY willing to assert stealing/takings for economic development, increased tax base and other redistributive endeavours our politburo members can extract from, more to their self-interests – e.g., Kelo case wrongful takings to redistribute wealth to Pfizer.
At risk of sounding ‘old fashioned’ the Union imposed the first conscription acts understanding if we were to force a person into harm’s way, some compensation applied for the duration. Most States have some provision (however meager) for wrongful incarceration upon discovering one has served prison time foregoing other things they may have accomplished in life. Is conscripting a mother (who doesn’t want to volunteer) for months of foregone opportunity and what may be a hazardous/injurious duty all that different? If they wish to ‘run to Canada’ I know there’s little one can do to stop a draft-dodger if history is any guide. Furthermore, there are few things more admirable than a mother who risks harm and possible death out of love for their child, on par with the serviceman who gives his life or limbs to save a fellow comrade(s) in arms. Can anyone in good conscious force another to such sacrifice and selflessness?
I’ve known good men (and even given testimony in court for some former students) who fought to be a part of their child’s lives. I’ve also consoled men who were devastated their child was killed as they were helpless to stop it. We can make the world a more grim or more joyful place – God’s word is the key to paradise in the long-run. I don’t see His word in the debate much these past several score to limit the killing, plundering, stealing, suffering and wrongful takings. Sad to see so many choosing the easy short-run path and those so effectively increasing their power/wealth (as they lose their souls) benefiting from those following the Roe precedent path.
Our modern Roman potentiates are just as adept in using fear and killing of innocent children as Herod in the attempt to (re)affirm their power and tyranny. Little surprise so many federal judges continue to display such poor intellect and integrity. May God forgive jurists of this sort as they are victims of poor education in the Spirit and the law as were hypocrites exposed in the Gospels writing about those charged with keeping the temple pure and administrators of the law. Irrational to expect the wisdom of Solomon out of jurists like Roberts and Thompson. Foolish perhaps to hope for more jurists who understand the Decalogue well enough to realize (s)he must reconcile thou shall not murder with thou shall not steal. How does a wise man cut that baby in two?
Postscript: I’d be remiss to close without wishing the Alabama Gazette a very blessed 22nd Anniversary as she remains a courageous “Voice of Reason” in our State to shed Light upon those endeavouring to envelope us in darkness. Honored to be a Gazette writer for over half those years. Again I ask all those who write/tell me they do not agree with me for forgiveness. I do not write seeking agreement, but to provoke thought as charged by the column’s moniker Loretta assigned a dozen years ago. One of the many lessons I’ve learned from Jesus’ teachings is those trying to follow His path to our heavenly Father will often be looked upon poorly by others. Jesus was not looking for agreement from corrupt clergy, nor moneychangers, nor Herod, et al. I’ve read nothing to suggest He expected agreement from Pilate, nor forecasted this procurator would ‘do right’ in the end but nonetheless had to provide the opportunity for Pilate and others to change their path. An integral part of the process is to first THINK about what one may do which will shepherd them towards the path Jesus Christ shown to the world. May God grant the Gazette many more years applying His word advancing the Holy Spirit to address our modern problems with the Wisdom of many ages past.