As I lay in bed this morning, still waking up from a good
night's rest, my mind turned to this current series, being
as it was the last thing that I worked on last night before
retiring. As I lay there pondering this issue, I thought of
a simple way to illustrate in a powerful way, the distorted
social attitude which seems to currently prevail in the USA,
when it comes to the contentious issue of abortion. I must
assume that this same attitude also prevails in other parts
of the world as well, due to the fact that approximately 42
million legal abortions are performed worldwide annually. I
want you to consider the following incidents and the general
public's reaction to them. These incidents are listed in no
particular order, except for the last one:

1. Sept. 11, 2001, 3,000+ people dead --- shock, dismay, anger
2. Columbine High School shootings ------ shock, dismay, anger
3. John F. Kennedy's assassination ------ shock, dismay, anger
4. Martin Luther King's assassination --- shock, dismay, anger
5. Jeffrey Dahmer, 17 gory murders ------ shock, dismay, anger
6. John Lennon's murder ----------------- shock, dismay, anger
7. Bali Bombings, 202 dead -------------- shock, dismay, anger
8. Oklahoma City Bombing, 168 dead ------ shock, dismay, anger
9. Branch Davidians Siege, 82 dead ------ shock, dismay, anger
10. Jonestown Mass Suicide, 909 dead ---- shock, dismay, anger
11. Heaven's Gate Suicides, 39 dead ----- shock, dismay, anger

12. 1.3 million annual US abortions ----- it's a woman's right
----------------------------------------- to do with her body
----------------------------------------- as she pleases.

Clearly, there is something wrong with our society, when the
vast majority of people express shock, dismay, anger, disgust
and repulsion upon hearing of the above-noted events, and yet
so many of those same people adopt such indifference when it
comes to the ugly issue of abortion, and the pre-meditated,
cold-blooded slaughter of over 1.37 million unborn, innocent
children annually in the United States of America alone.

It just seems to me that if the Supreme Court justices truly
wanted to correct the serious legal mistake that was made so
long ago, surely they would have done it already. Think about
the following. The Roe v. Wade case was first argued before
the Supreme Court on December 9, 1971. It was then reargued
ten months later on October 11, 1972. The Supreme Court then
ruled in favor of "Jane Roe", on January 22, 1973. In short,
Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court in a matter of
just over thirteen months. Thirty-six years have now passed
since then; so why is it that the Supreme Court is finding it
so difficult to reverse its decision? It just amazes me that
three women in their mid-twenties -- Sarah Weddington, Linda
Coffee and Norma L. McCorvey -- were able to convince the
supposedly wise sages of the U.S. Supreme Court, who should
have known better than to have made the Roe v. Wade ruling.

While there exists a variety of reasons, both legal, as well
as Bible-based, regarding why the Roe v. Wade ruling should
be overturned, one which I find particularly compelling is
the fact that the determination was made in part, based upon
what we now know was an intentional deception. In the case,
Norma L. McCorvey, (who adopted the pseudonym of "Jane Roe"),
claimed that her pregnancy was the result of being raped. She
has since admitted that this was not true. Furthermore, she
has since stated that she was a pawn who was manipulated by
two rather ambitious Texas attorneys by the names of Sarah
Weddington and Linda Coffee, who were looking for a plaintiff
with whom they could challenge Texas law which made abortion
illegal, except in the case when it is necessary to save a
woman's life. I am obviously no legal scholar, but unless I
am mistaken, isn't perjury sufficient reason to throw out a
case? Isn't this a valid reason to revisit the Roe v. Wade
ruling, even though thirty-six years have passed?

What I find ironic is the fact that while this famous case
revolved around McCorvey's right to obtain an abortion, she
never actually had the abortion, and gave birth to a girl,
which she gave up for adoption. It might also interest you
to know that in 1995, McCorvey made a full reversal, and
allied herself with "Operation Rescue", which is dedicated
to making abortion illegal again. In her 1998 book entitled
"Won By Love", McCorvey described the defining moment when
she reversed her position regarding abortion. She wrote:

----- Begin Quote -----

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal
development poster. The progression was so obvious, the
eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them.
I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said
to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant
women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and
deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in
that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the
picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to
myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my
eyes and I suddenly understood the truth -- that's a baby!"

"I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had
to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about
"products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods."
It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs.
All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was
wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more
of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester
stuff. Abortion - at any point - was wrong. It was so clear.
Painfully clear."

----- End Quote -----

Realizing how much damage she had caused to unborn children,
in 2004, in the case McCorvey v. Hill, the former "Jane Doe"
petitioned to have the 1973 ruling overturned. In the case,
she argued that Roe v. Wade should be heard again in light of
evidence that abortion does harm to women. However, due to a
legal time limitation, the US District Court for the Northern
District of Texas ruled that it was too late for McCorvey to
file her case. The district court's ruling was upheld by the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; and on February 22,
2005, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Judicial Review, known in
legalese as "Certiorari", thus rendering the Fifth Circuit's
ruling final; and that is where the case currently stands.
Furthermore, I have read certain legal opinions which seem
to indicate that due to the specific language that was used
in the ruling, it is possible that Roe v. Wade may never be
overturned.

What the above information tells me personally, is that the
U.S. Supreme Court apparently has no desire or interest in
overturning Roe v. Wade. Think about this for a moment. Ms.
Norma L. McCorvey petitioned at a time when a conservative
administration was in office, and the U.S. Supreme Court is
filled with conservative-minded justices. In spite of these
facts, by resorting to Certiorari, the court was basically
saying "We have no interest in reviewing the case". If this
is the best that we can anticipate from a conservative court
during a conservative administration, can you imagine what's
going to happen when President-elect Obama takes office in
less than two weeks?

The handwriting is obviously already written on the wall, and
has been for some time. As we discussed before in this series,
the Freedom of Choice Act will become law just as soon as the
US Congress passes the final version of the bill to incoming
president, Barack Obama. As I recently explained to some of
my online friends, I was reading a news article which again
confirms that Obama won't hesitate to undo some of the good
that President Bush has managed to accomplish in the fight to
overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling during the eight years of his
presidency.

The article deals with the Bush Administration's attempt to
push through a proposed rule which would prohibit recipients
of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses,
pharmacy workers, and other health care workers, who, due to
their "religious beliefs or moral convictions", refuse to be
involved in abortion procedures, or sterilization procedures.
Halfway through the article in question, Obama's intentions
regarding this rule, (should it become effective), are made
perfectly clear. Consider these excerpts from the article:

----- Begin Quote -----

The protest from the commission comes on the heels of other
objections to the rule by doctors, pharmacists, hospitals,
state attorneys general and political leaders, including
President-elect Barack Obama.

Mr. Obama has said the proposal will raise new hurdles to
women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion
and some contraceptives.

Officials at the Health and Human Services Department said
they intended to issue a final version of the rule within
days. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he would try to
rescind it, a process that could take three to six months.

----- End Quote -----

The way that Obama will probably rescind this rule, will be
by signing the all-encompassing Freedom of Choice Act just
soon as it lands on his desk. As we saw earlier, FOCA will
make abortion on demand the unquestionable law of the land;
and medical professionals won't be able to refuse to perform
an abortion, without facing serious legal repercussions. If
this is truly an act dealing with the freedom of choice, why
will these medical professionals be forced to do something
which is against their conscience? FOCA will in fact legally
enforce the will of the abortionists upon everyone. The name
of this bill is nothing short of deceptive.


Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1