How the Pro Life Movement Destroys the Faith

For over three decades the pro life movement has failed to abolish legalized abortion in the USA. A detailed analysis of the present strategies being implemented by the pro life movement will show you that the pro life movement will continue to fail. This unremitting failure to abolish legalized abortion is resulting in a de facto theology that makes God look like He cares more about laws that He did not make than He cares about people that He did make. Only a fool would believe in such a god.

The title of this article spotlights a startling possibility. Is it possible that people like the ones who make up the pro life movement, people who truly believe themselves to be the champions of God on earth, can actually be doing things that literally destroy people's ability to know and believe in the God revealed in Holy Scripture?

The Lord Jesus Christ made it clear that people could say all the right things about God yet do things that make them the enemies of God. He said in Matthew 23:2, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."

This article marshals documentary evidence that proves the accusation symbolized in the picture above. The pro life movement is composed of today's Scribes and Pharisees because they say they love unborn babies but the things they do protect only themselves while little babies they claim to love are daily butchered around them. The documentary evidence contained in this article leads to an inescapable conclusion: Unless the pro life movement is replaced by a movement that creates a de facto theology demonstrating the power rather than the impotence of God, the pro life movement will destroy the faith.

DE FACTO THEOLOGY

To put the evidence in this article in focus it is necessary to understand de facto theology.  When Jesus was talking about the scribes and Pharisees in the verse above, He was explaining that people's actions, as well as people's words, make up their witness, their testimony, about God.  Furthermore, Jesus was clearly implying that when there is a discrepancy between words and actions, actions speak louder than words in defining what people really believe, and no matter what people say, their actions prove what they really believe.  That is exactly what de facto theology looks like. When people say one thing about God, but their actions tell a different story about God, then the actions of the people will create a de facto theology that provides their actual witness to others about God.

TODAY'S STRATEGY IS NOTHING BUT A REPLAY OF THE FAILED STRATEGIES OF THE PAST

2006 is a signal year for the pro life movement in America. For the past two years prior to this date, the Pro Life movement has invested massive amounts of money, human energy and time into a strategy that is supposed to overturn Roe v. Wade and return abortion to the outlaw status it had for the entire history of the USA until this present generation came along.

The strategy consisted of a State or States passing laws opposing abortion and those laws then being taken to the Supreme Court which would, according to the strategy theory,overturn Roe v. Wade thereby outlawing abortion as it had been in 1973.

You can see the political capital and power the pro life movement invested in the strategy when you realize that by 2006 every State in the nation had anti-abortion legislation either established or under way. Twenty-six states had laws banning abortion after three months of pregnancy. Legislation underway in four states, South Dakota, Tennessee, Indiana and Ohio, would have banned abortions entirely unless the mother’s life was clearly in danger, with Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana moving to quickly follow suit.

Imagine the kind of massive grass roots political effort it takes to move the majority of a State legislature to pass legislation that effectively countermands a law the federal government of the USA, through the agency of the Supreme Court, has decreed to be a Constitutionally protected right and you will see the massive energy the pro life movement invested in this strategy. Millions of dollars were poured into the political strategy and millions of people at the State level had been marshaled to support the legislation in those States or it would have been impossible for State politicians to support the legislation without committing political suicide.

In summary, 2006 must be seen to be a milestone in the pro life movement because never since the passage of Roe v. Wade had so much political power been marshaled by the pro life movement in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade.

And the strategy has all the appearances of a powerful movement. In response, the pro abortion forces were quick to marshal their forces to overcome the threat ostensibly being created by the pro life movement. Warning flags of dire events began to be flown by all the forces of abortion. Nancy Keenan, president of the National Abortion Rights Action League's [NARAL]Pro-Choice America said to Reuters news agency, "I think [Roe vs. Wade] in the short term will be dismantled. We have an anti-choice president, an anti-choice Congress and now ... with the confirmation of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, we are seeing the potential for a very right-leaning, anti-choice Supreme Court." NARAL followed up their warning by begging their faithful for money, "This morning, South Dakotans launched an effort to repeal their state's outrageous abortion ban -- but we need your help to make it happen!" NARAL screamed.

NARAL was joined by the entire abortion industry. In response to the South Dakota legislation, the National Organization for Women sent out an SOS, "The times are urgent and we must act!...This is exactly the fight that right-wing zealots have been itching for -- a chance to reverse Roe and once again seize control of women's bodies and lives. Almost in concert, other states are introducing their own bans, including Mississippi, which moved forward with similar legislation last week. If the South Dakota ban makes it to the Supreme Court, our two new justices will have the opportunity to vote to reverse Roe. If they do, every Senator who failed to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Sam Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and every Senator who voted to confirm Roberts, will share responsibility for what follows..." NOW moaned.

If NARAL and NOW were so agitated, you can imagine the kind of screams coming from Planned Parenthood.

Money and volunteers began to pour into both the pro life and the pro abortion coffers as American society waited to see dramatic political events unfold.

THE STRATEGY WAS A PAPER TIGER WITH NEVER A REASONABLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS

There was only one thing preventing that dramatic battle from unfolding: there was never reasonable basis for expecting that the Supreme Court, as it was constituted in 2006, would overturn Roe v. Wade. The evidence provided below will prove that any reasonable person would have known in advance that the strategy the Pro Life movement is currently investing all its resources into was destined to fail because the identical strategy had been implemented by the Pro Life movement about 20 years ago and had not only failed to abolish legalized abortion but had, in fact, greased the slippery slope of legalized abortion that consumed such a ghastly number of unborn babies over the past twenty years that it is obscene to print the number.

Anybody who had actually listened to what the people sitting on the Supreme Court had said about legalized abortion would have seen that the political strategy being implemented by the pro life movement in 2006 was doomed to failure. There was not a snowball's chance in hell that Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Stare Decisis would intone its death knell for the pro life strategy in 2006 just as it had intoned its death knell for every pro life offensive since 1973.

THE CURSE OF STARE DECISIS

This is the meaning found in any English dictionary:

Main Entry: 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

I'll let the Supreme Court explain stare decisis to you. Read what they say and you'll begin to see why I call stare decisis a curse.

Writing for the Supreme Court majority in an abortion case that this article will examine in detail,Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),the court explained stare decisis: "While we appreciate the weight of the arguments made on behalf of the State in the cases before us, arguments which in their ultimate formulation conclude that Roe should be overruled, the reservations any of us may have in reaffirming the central holding of Roe are outweighed by the explication of individual liberty we have given, combined with the force of stare decisis. We turn now to that doctrine [stare decisis, author]. [505 U.S. 833, 854]

The Court explained the power of state decisis, "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. See B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921). 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. See Powell, Stare Decisis and Judicial Restraint, 1991 Journal of Supreme Court History 13, 16. 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.

The Court continued, "Even when the decision to overrule a prior case is not, as in the rare, latter instance, virtually foreordained, it is common wisdom that the rule of stare decisis is not an 'inexorable command...' Rather, when this Court reexamines a prior holding, its judgment is customarily informed by a series of prudential and pragmatic considerations designed to test the consistency of overruling a prior decision with the ideal of the rule of law, and to gauge the respective costs of reaffirming and overruling a prior case.

The Court concluded its explanation of stare decisis, "So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on State power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."

Remember the previous paragraph because every Supreme Court decision concerning abortion in the future will have to deal with the criteria defined there. Especially note that the Supreme Court has defined the conditions under which stare decisis could be overruled by the court; namely,"...if a prior judicial ruling [Roe v. Wade]should come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement was, for that very reason, doomed."

Do you think that legalized abortion has come to be seen so clearly as error that its enforcement is, for that very reason, doomed? If legalized abortion has come to be seen so clearly as error, then why will several thousand people kill their babies today? Obviously a huge percentage of the people of the USA do not believe legalized abortion is error. According to stare decisis, the Supreme Court is obligated to wait until society admits legalized abortion is wrong before overruling Roe v. Wade.

Do you think the Bush appointees to the Supreme Court have a different attitude toward stare decisis? If so, you have never listened to what they told the United States Congress and the American people who listened to them during their confirmation process to the Supreme Court. Listen now and you will see...

What the Bush Appointees to the Supreme Court Have to Say About Stare Decisis

You can see the importance to the future of Roe v. Wade of the two recent Bush Administration appointees to the Supreme Court, Judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito,by remembering what the spokesperson for NARAL said about them, "If the South Dakota ban makes it to the Supreme Court, our two new justices will have the opportunity to vote to reverse Roe."

Anyone who actually listened to what John Roberts said about stare decisis would have known Roe v. Wade was not slated to be overturned by that man's vote.

Prior to his confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge Roberts was publicly questioned by the Senate Judicial Committee. At one point, he was asked to explain the importance of prior Supreme Court decisions to the rule of law. Roberts answered, "It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis.”

Then Senator Arlen Specter, the Chairman of the Judicial Committee asked Roberts to explain the 1992 Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey . Roberts stated that he believed that,in addition to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey had to be considered before arriving at any decision about the legality of abortion.When asked to summarize the significance of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Roberts replied, “It reaffirmed the central holding in Roe v. Wade.”

Sen. Specter pressed Roberts on whether the abortion ruling was settled law for him--established only for an appellate judge such as he or “settled beyond that.” Roberts answered, “Well, beyond that, it’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not.” Roberts concluded.

In that answer Roberts was referring to the earlier section I quoted from the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Roberts was stating specifically that he understood that the principles about when cases like Roe v. Wade should be revisited by the Supreme Court had been defined by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and, furthermore, he was saying that those principles were "settled."

Think about the meaning of the word settled. Merriam-Webster dictionary says settled means: "1 : to place so as to stay."

Anyone actually paying attention to what Roberts was saying would have to conclude that the rules of logic require his answer to be interpreted so that he was saying, as clearly as words can be said, that the precedent established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was settled so that it was to stay in place.

And what was the precedent established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? It was exactly the same precedent established in Roe v. Wade: The right to abortion is a Constitutional right granted to every expectant mother in the United States of America.

Roberts also told Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another member of the Senate Judicial Committee, that he would judge any challenge to Roe v. Wade according to the principle of stare decisis. Amplifying what he meant, Roberts cited the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and said that it would be included in his deliberations if a case challenging the landmark case came before him. He said, "Well, that determination in Casey becomes one of the precedents of the court, entitled to respect like any other precedent of the court, under principles of stare decisis," Roberts said.

Many people were confused about John Roberts because they heard that Roberts had, earlier in his career, rejected the idea that legalized abortion was based on a right to privacy Sen. Specter questioned Roberts on that precise point. Specter noted that Roberts had early in his career dismissed Roe v. Wade's holding that the right to abortion is grounded in what he termed "the so-called right to privacy." Then Specter asked, "So they weren't necessarily your views then and they certainly aren't your views now?"

"I think that's fair, yes," Roberts replied. "The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways," Roberts said, citing the First, Third and Fourth amendments as well as 80 years of precedent.

Judge Roberts own words make it clear he has no intention to overrule stare decisis in his future rulings on legalized abortion.

Is Judge Alito any different?

WHAT JUDGE ALITO TOLD SENATORS WHEN HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT STARE DECISIS…

• Judge Alito reassured Senator Mark Pryor (D-AK) that he believed in the importance of stare decisis, the legal principle that fosters stability in the law by requiring respect for precedent. [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/4/05]

• Judge Alito also told Robert Byrd (D-WV) he had strong support for stare decisis. [US Fed News, 11/3/05]

• Judge Alito told Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) that Roe v. Wade is precedent which many people have relied upon and deserves great respect. [Associated Press, 11/9/05]

• Judge Alito conveyed to Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) that he has tremendous respect for precedent. [Associated Press, 11/9/05]

And there you have the evidence the pro life movement uses to sound their victory trumpets. How can anyone actually listen to what both Alito and Roberts have to say about Roe v. Wade and stare decisis and then conclude they can be depended on to overturn Roe v. Wade? There is only one way. The person has to be either a self-conscious liar or a self-deluded liar. Either way, the facts require them to be seen to be a liar of some sort. The fact is neither Alito or Roberts have said one word in public that can be used as a factual basis for believing either of them will vote to even hear an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade much less vote to overturn it.

The pro life strategy today is a repeat of a strategy that failed 20 years ago

In 2006, South Dakota was the first of a series of State legislatures that attempted to outlaw, or aggressively restrict, abortion in their States. Pro life leaders across the nation heralded the South Dakota legislation outlawing abortion as evidence that Roe v. Wade was in imminent danger of being abolished.

Strangely no one within the pro life movement seemed to notice that exactly that same strategy had been implemented in the mid 1980's and, not only had failed abysmally to overturn Roe v. Wade, but had provided a crystal clear legal precedent that defined exactly why no State legislature could be expected to overturn legalized abortion in the future. I refer to the pro life debacle called Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey Revisited

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, (505 U.S. 833 1992) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania State regulations regarding abortion was challenged. The case not only upheld legalized abortion in the USA but became the bedrock upon which future cases involving a State's attempt to restrict legalized abortion would have to be measured.

In 2006, in the face of the precedent established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, for the pro life movement to think that South Dakota or South Carolina or Mississippi or any other State could implement exactly the same strategy and provide hope for arresting legalized abortion demonstrates that more than ordinary wishful thinking is motivating the pro life movement but actual delusional thinking has become the operating environment for the pro life movement.

To show you how deeply committed to this delusional thinking the pro life movement has become, this article was the only voice raised that attempted to point out how deluded the pro life movement has become.

TIME FACTOR MEANS THE PRO LIFE MOVEMENT HAS CREATED A STRATEGY THAT GUARANTEES MILLIONS OF BABIES WILL BE LEGALLY BUTCHERED

Examine the process being set in motion by the government of South Dakota and the other States like Georgia who plan to emulate her actions and you will see not the imminent overthrow of legalized abortion but the means through which legalized abortion will become institutionalized forever in the USA.

The consequences of the South Dakota legislation can be examined on both the State and the federal level. At the State level,the South Dakota abortion ban is not to take effect until July 1, 2006. That means that, even though a law has ostensibly been passed prohibiting abortion,today abortion continues in South Dakota as it has for the last 33 years. Furthermore, legal challenges under South Dakota law coupled with a possible petition drive to put it on the ballot could delay the law being enforced in South Dakota for up to three years. So at the State level the South Dakota legislation cannot even become law in South Dakota for up to three years...and that is if there was no way to appeal the South Dakota legislation to the federal Supreme Court.

But of course no State law can go into effect if it is seen by the Supreme Court to violate the federal Constitution. No one suggests the South Dakota legislation will go into effect until after the Supreme Court has ruled on its Constitutionality. Even the most optimistic pro lifer admits it will take years before the South Dakota legislation is argued before the Supreme Court.

In summary, the South Dakota legislation has no chance whatsoever of deterring even one abortion for several years, if ever.

So there you have it. The pro life movement has created a strategy that makes it inevitable that legalized abortion will continue for years and not one single baby's death will be prevented by that strategy.

Is it not obvious now that the people who are involved in creating the idea that Roe v. Wade is being threatened by the actions being taken by South Dakota and other States are liars? Whether they are deceived themselves, or self-conscious deceivers, is irrelevant because the end result is the same either way: they lie, thereby creating a false hope for change; and in the creation of that false hope, instead of defending those appointed to destruction, they literally grease the skids for the destruction of the people they claim to be trying to protect.

PROLIFERS DENY EVERYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE AND CONTEND THAT THE NEW APPOINTEES WILL OVERTURN ROE V. WADE

Even if they are right, the strategy the pro life movement has invested in cannot work itself out for YEARS. Now think about the significance of choosing a strategy that, even if it turns out to be the solution to legalized abortion in the USA (which if you have been reading this article you will know is considered by this writer to a pipe dream even the most brain addled opium addict would dismiss out of hand) the strategy will ensure that literally millions of unborn babies will be legally butchered in this nation. Now think about that. The group that is allegedly committed to protecting unborn babies from death--the pro life movement--commits all its political influence and all its money to a strategy that, even if everything works out the very best way possible, absolutely guarantees that approximately 1.3 million babies will be sacrificed each year during the approximately five years it will take for the strategy to reach the point of final decision.

Does that speak volumes about the pro life movement? How could any group of people who claimed to be called by God to stop the slaughter of innocent human beings willingly decide to invest themselves in a strategy that offered virtually no real chance of protecting the babies anytime in the future but absolutely guaranteed the continued slaughter of the people in the present? The only way they could issue such a claim is to decide they did not care what kind of de facto theology they were creating. Such people had to be willing to create an image of God where God was seen to be willing to protect and reward His servants who were born while at the same time accepting the legalized slaughter of His unborn servants forever rather than cause His born servants to risk their lives in defense of the unborn.

Could you expect people to continue to believe that such a god was worthy of praise? Of worship? Of devotion?

Of course not. Such a god is worthy of nothing but the same thing the people who create such a de facto image of god deserve: Scorn, unmitigated and unremitting scorn. That is why the pro life movement is well on its way to destroying the faith in this generation.

If you've read this article to this point, one thing should be obvious: the leaders and followers of the pro life movement will absolutely refuse to accept the evidence presented here. Because of all they have invested in this present strategy, they will under no circumstances refuse to push the strategy to its conclusion. But here is where the really horrible part of this story comes in. The pro live movement has done this entire strategy before. And look at what they did when the strategy failed in the middle 1990's and neither President Reagan or Bush the First overturned legalized abortion. They spent the next twenty years preparing the resources to allow them to IMPLEMENT THE SAME FAILED STRATEGY ALL OVER AGAIN! Do you see the horrible meaning of such determined disregard of the facts? Do you see the kind of self-deluded people who, in the face of the responsibility to stop the slaughter of innocent unborn babies, will allow themselves to be seduced by Satan into such self-serving delusion and double-mindedness? But the horror story continues. What on earth is there to prevent this process going on forever? Every twenty years the pro life movement invests several million dollars and thousands of hours of volunteer work into another round of utterly useless political machinations, and when it fails, they continue to go about their business enjoying the fruits thrown their way by the princes of this world who reward them for continuing the delusion that people really believe there is a Creator out there who Creates unborn babies. Then, twenty years down the road, they bring another series of cases before the Supreme Court which are defeated based on the doctrine of stare decisis, and the process goes on and on just as it has continued for the past twenty years.

IS THERE NO HOPE?

Given the kind of determined self-delusion that is occurring in this nation among both Christians and pagans, there is no reasonable basis for expecting that people in this nation will actually be moved by the information contained in this article to change anything at all. But there is a reasonable basis to think that the day will come when the Holy Spirit will break the blinders from His people's eyes. And He certainly could use this article to help with that. Since we don't expect anyone much to read this now, we're going to bury about one hundred copies of this article in steel ammo cans like this one at locations commonly scanned by GPS systems. We take real pleasure in imagining how someday, maybe hundreds of years from now, when the faith has apparently been banished from the planet forever, the Holy Spirit will direct some person to dig up the can, read the article and--BAM, WHAM--the Holy Spirit will zap him like He did Paul on the road to Damascus and the faith that was seen to be dead will rise up to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ as He deserves to be glorified.

But unless we want to wait for that day long in the future, the sooner the True and Living God destroys the self-serving and deluded faux Christian entity called the pro life movement, the better. Then maybe God's people will get around to the only strategy with the power to force this nation to restore God to His rightful place of authority in this nation.

Neal Horsley, June 26, 2006