(Christian Gallery News Service, April 20, 2008)  In a 5-4 decision on April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court upheld the ban on Partial Birth Abortions passed by the US Congress.   Immediately leaders of pro-life organizations began holding a series of press conferences and sending out endless fund-raising appeals trumpeting that the current Supreme Court decision was, as a leader of Operation Rescue said, the "first step toward outlawing all abortions." A list of headlines published the day of the Court's decision shows the entire pro-life movement rushing to jump on the victory bandwagon: "Americans United for Life Praises Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban," "FRC Praises Supreme Court Ruling Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban," "ACLJ Applauds Supreme Court Decision Outlawing Partial-Birth Abortion, Monumental Victory' for Human Life."  The pro-life movement could not be more wrong.  As this article explains, the confusion sown by the response of the pro-life leaders to the Court's recent decision sets the stage for countless millions of babies to be legally butchered for decades to come in the USA.

To clear up this confusion, you must be willing to think seriously about the Court's recent decision because what the Court did was confusing.  At first glance the 5-4 decision forbidding partial birth abortion does appear to show that there is now a majority on the Supreme Court willing to change legalized abortion.  But first impressions are often dead wrong.  Not only that, the pro-life movement should have learned long ago that due diligence is required to be applied in studying Supreme Court decisions before arriving at conclusions about the meaning of those decisions.  Long ago the pro-life movement should have learned that the Supreme Court often acts like a man who will say anything in an attempt to seduce a woman but who actually has only one thing on his mind.  In the case of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, the recent partial birth abortion decision proves (as if there was ever any grounds for doubt) that the Supreme Court has the same thing that has been on its mind for the last 34 years: the perpetuation of legalized abortion. 

A brief added to the partial birth abortion decision by Justices Thomas and Scalia helps us see the true meaning of the Court's decision.  If you will study the brief added by those two Justices, it will become obvious that instead of the recent decision showing a 5-4 Supreme Court split in favor of overturning legalized abortion, the recent ruling actually reveals that the Supreme Court as presently constituted is split 7-2, with the majority composed of Supreme Court Justices who have no intention whatsoever of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Why is Justices Scalia and Thomas's brief so revealing, so significant?  Listen to what Justice Thomas wrote, with Scalia agreeing, "I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) has no basis in the Constitution."

In other words, they stated that the Supreme Court was wrong in ever taking the Roe v. Wade case in the beginning, was wrong when the Supreme Court said one word about abortion: that's what it means to deny the Court jurisdiction over legal questions related to abortion.

The message about the Court's "abortion jurisprudence" they sent in that brief is a truly radical analysis of the Supreme Court's handling of abortion in this nation that cuts off legalized abortion at its very root.  I'll explain why later in this article but before you can see the need to grasp the ins and outs of "abortion jurisprudence" you need to see why the separate opinion of Justices Thomas and Scalia is so important.

The fact that Justices Scalia and Thomas were not joined by the other three members in the 5-4 decision outlawing partial birth abortion speaks volumes about the actual makeup of the present Supreme Court.

Stop for a minute and ask why the other three justices--Kennedy, Roberts and Alito--who made up the 5-4 majority in the partial birth abortion decision did not join Justices Scalia and Thomas in denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction in matters of abortion?  All five agreed on partial birth, why not on the points raised by Thomas and Scalia?

Supreme Court decisions are structured so that every Justice can have their complete say on any matter brought before the Court if they choose to.  If an individual Justice believes his/her point of view represents a distinct or separate position from either the majority or the minority position, then that Justice can, and often does, write a brief explaining that distinction or difference.  Justices Scalia and Thomas wrote a brief explaining their point of view on abortion because their point of view was different than the position defined in either the Court's majority or minority opinion.

So why didn't Justices Roberts, Alito and Kennedy agree with the point made by Justices Thomas and Scalia?  There is only one answer that makes any sense whatsoever.  The other three Justices did not agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas.  Period.

The enemies of unborn babies are going to do everything they can to deny that conclusion.  No matter what anybody tells you about why the other Justices did not join Thomas and Scalia, don't believe them.  The only interpretation that does justice to the facts is this: seven justices do not agree with Thomas and Scalia.  If you lend yourself to any other interpretation, you will embrace wishful thinking that will prevent you from being goaded to think about what is actually going to be required to move the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

May God grant you the grace to see the obvious: If the other three Justices do not agree with Justices Scalia and Thomas that the Court does not have abortion jurisprudence, then the meaning is clear and irrefutable: the other three justices believe the Court does have jurisdiction on abortion jurisprudence. 

And that is the truly defining point of the Court's partial birth abortion decision.  If the Justices on the Supreme Court other than Thomas and Scalia believe the Court had jurisdiction in Roe v. Wade, then it is an inescapable conclusion that the other SEVEN justices have to believe the principles of stare decisis as defined by the Supreme Court must rule their decisions in upcoming abortion cases.

So there you have the true significance of Justice Scalia and Thomas's action, and the true meaning of the Supreme Court's Partial Birth Abortion Decision: The two Justices--Thomas and Scalia in their brief--were giving us evidence designed by them to show the entire nation the actual abortion mindset of the Supreme Court.  They were showing us that only TWO of the Justices--themselves--are actually willing to overturn Roe. v. Wade.  They were showing us that the rest of the seven Justices believed Roe v. Wade was "settled law" that had to be dealt with following all the rules of stare decisis.

YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ABORTION TODAY WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING STARE DECISIS

This is the meaning found in any English dictionary: sta·re de·ci·sis
Pronunciation: "ster-E-di-'sI-s&s, "star-, "stär-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, to stand by decided matters
: a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice

If you actually want to understand why legalized abortion is designed to continue forever in the USA, you simply cannot avoid learning about the principles of stare decisis.  As both Justices Roberts and Alito defined under oath prior to their approval to the Supreme Court, the principles of stare decisis DICTATE the reasoning process justices must follow in deciding cases that fall under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

Think back to what Justices Scalia and Thomas stated in their brief in the current abortion case.  They stated that the Court's "abortion jurisprudence" has no basis in the Constitution.  That means they were saying that the Supreme Court never had jurisdiction over matters concerning abortion because the Constitution did not give the Court that jurisdiction.

Unless you understand that as long as the rest of the Justices believe the Supreme Court has the right to rule on matters concerning abortion that they will be honor bound to rule, to make their decisions, to issue their orders based on the principles of stare decisis, then you will never be able to understand why legalized abortion continues in this nation year after year, decade after decade, century after century.

Listen to how the Supreme Court defines stare decisis in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the abortion ruling that set the abortion laws in concrete in this country, "The obligation to follow precedent begins with necessity, and a contrary necessity marks its outer limit. With Cardozo, we recognize that no judicial system could do society's work if it eyed each issue afresh in every case that raised it...Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law underlying our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable...At the other extreme, a different necessity would make itself felt if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed. [emphasis mine]"

What the Supreme Court is saying is this: if it is seen that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over a matter, then the only way an existing precedent can be overruled is "if a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed."

Now do you see why it is so revealing that Justices Scalia and Thomas stated they did not believe the Court ever had jurisdiction over abortion matters?  Without that belief, every Justice on the Supreme Court is honor bound to judge every abortion case brought before it on the basis of stare decisis. What that means specifically is this: Unless Roe v. Wade is seen to be so clearly as error that its enforcement is, for that very reason, doomed, then the precedent established by Roe v. Wade, if it is altered at all, would be altered in such a way as to change nothing substantially established in Roe v. Wade.

So what's my point?  Why am I writing all this?

You are being deceived by the leaders of the pro-life community into thinking there is a scintilla of basis for hope that Roe v. Wade is likely to be overturned in the upcoming decades in the United States of America.  Until a majority on the Court concludes, like Thomas and Scalia, that the Supreme Court NEVER had jurisdiction in abortion related matters of law, then the Supreme Court will be honor bound based on their own definition of stare decisis--that in turn defines the duty of Justices of the Supreme Court--to perpetuate legalized abortion in this nation.

When leaders of the pro-life movement avoid making these facts central to the thought process of every pro-life Christian in this nation, they raise real questions about exactly what they are trying to do with their leadership in this nation.

Why have American Christians not been told about the power the principles of stare decisis hold over the Supreme Court and through them over the lives of millions of unborn babies that have been legally butchered and millions more who will be butchered until Roe v. Wade is overturned?

In the answer to that question, we see unfold the details of the biggest story laid before any journalist since the invention of the printing press.  That's right.  I'm saying that this story of the deception of American Christians and the historically unprecedented desecration of the government of the United States of America and of the citizens that government was formed to protect is the biggest story laid on the desk of any journalist since the invention of the printing press.  The fact that I am one of the few journalists in the world working to document that story is one of the most interesting parts of the story.  How is it that the biggest story in the history of Christendom, the story of the literal dismantlement of the influence of the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ on the governments of western civilization, can be relegated to the desk of a free lance writer whose exclusive venue of publication is an Internet News Service?

As you will see if you read the continuation of this story entitled "Operation Rescue Nothing," the reason can be traced to the fact that the people who should be most eager to document this historically unprecedented story, Christian leaders and Christian followers alive today, are in fact the very ones who are doing everything in their power to pretend the story is not developing at all.  How such disregard of the biggest story since the crucifixtion of the Lord Jesus Christ could be ignored can only be explained by an indepth analysis of the methods of self-deception available to people at a time when communication media has progressed to the point that stories can be ibroadcast to billions of people across the globe instantaneously.  The kind of self-deception that is being practiced across all the institutions of Christianity today speaks volumes not only about how the dismantlement occurred but about how the dismantlement continues to grow. 

If you've read this far, you must realize you are faced with a fateful decision.  Here's why.  Before this article is published in the Internet, it is sent to several thousand people.  Those people represent the broad diversity of opinions concerning legalized abortion in this nation.  Abortionists, as well as pro-life leaders, as well as hard-core abortion abolitionists, monitor the articles we publish because everyone seriously involved in this matter knows we have been instrumental in the past in moving things to the next step.  Having read this article this far, however you respond to it will demonstrate what you truly believe is the next step in the matter of legalized abortion in the USA.  In other words, your response to this article proves what you individually believe is the next step in responding to legalized abortion.

You can decide to ignore this article and its companion article entitled "Operation Rescue Nothing" and go about your business as if the Christian pro-life community in this nation has not become the central obstacle not only to the abolition of legalized abortion but to the effective preaching of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.  If you decide to ignore the article, your decision to act like you KNOW such an accusation could not be true will be proof positive that you have decided to ignore anything that makes accusations you do not agree with even when your ignorance of the evidence allegedly proving those accusations means you will thereby collaborate through your determined disregard of the evidence with the very things you claim to be opposed to.  There is a word in the Bible for such people.  Hypocrite.  The Lord Jesus Christ had much to say about such people. 

This article began by stating its intention to tell you Why Confusing Recent Supreme Court Decision Can Kill Babies By the Millions.  The "Why" is this: all people have to do to continue to kill people by the millions is continue to believe that the Supreme Court of the USA, as it is presently constituted, can be trusted to overturn Roe v. Wade without the principles of stare decisis being fulfilled.  As the Supreme Court has clearly stated, if the Justices grant that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over abortion matters, then there is only one condition under which Roe v. Wade can be overturned; that is, if "a prior judicial ruling should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed."

People who claim to be opposed to legalized abortion in this nation who are not willing to create the conditions that can move the majority in this nation to see that legalized abortion is so clearly an error that its enforcement is, for that very reason, doomed are going to be judged by the Holy Spirit based on how they respond to this article.  If God's people are not willing to do what is necessary to stop the legalization of murder, then those people have something to learn about the Holy Spirit of God.  If you think the Holy Spirit of God will continue to protect and fellowship with those who decide to ignore the unjustified slaughter of God's children by refusing to do what is necessary to stop it, you have a spirit who is neither Holy nor capable of helping you avoid the wrath of God that is coming to those who grieve and quench the Holy Spirit of God.

This is what is necessary to stop legalized abortion.