Tuesday, June 28, 2016

SCOTUS Rules On "Amazing Grace vs. Hail Satan" Abortion Law

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Yesterday, the Supreme Court reversed a landmark Texas pro-life law.

Pro-abortion advocates are celebrating, because the ruling not only will affect Texas, but many other states as well.

When the Texas Legislature was considering the bill that ultimately became law, the ant-life forces were so white hot in their opposition, they even identified with Satan himself.

While pro-lifers stood in the rotunda of the State House and sang, "Amazing Grace," pro-abortionists shouted them down with, "Hail Satan."

Today, pro-abortion advocates and a complicit press, celebrated.

The Supreme Court got the last chant. For now.

It was an amazing site to see and hear pro-life believers singing, "Amazing Grace," as they stood, prayed and sang at the Texas Statehouse, while pro-life legislators and a pro-life Christian Governor withstood the onslaught from the secular progressive Left.

Democrat Sen. Wendy Davis held forth with her 11-hour filibuster, while a mob of shouting abortion advocates joined, successfully, delaying the vote.

The Left was so contentious that when pro-life Christians moved into the rotunda and began singing "Amazing Grace," the mob of angry pro-abortion advocates began shouting, "Hail Satan."

Former Planned Parenthood clinic director turned pro-life activist Abbey Johnson was present.

She told Life Site News that many of the protesters were chanting the common Leftist slogan, "Not the church. not the state, women must decide their fate."

"However," she said, another group of them "were clearly shouting 'Hail Satan'."

The State Legislature passed and then Governor Rick Perry signed a law that was significant in protecting the lives of unborn children.

However, the pro-abortion people would have none of it, thus appealing and ultimately bringing the Texas law before the Supreme Court.

The Court ruled yesterday in favor of the abortion advocates.

The essence of the law was that in addition to restricting abortion to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy, it required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their offices and abortion facilities to meet the same health standards as other ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).

Planned Parenthood reported that because of this law, they were forced to close 13 abortion facilities in one day.

Yesterday, the Court, in overturning the state law, said the law violated constitutional rights to abortion.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the decision, said that both requirements place a substantial burden on women's right to exercise their reproductive rights, including the right to obtain an abortion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote her own concurring opinion saying there is no need for these requirements because "complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous."

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent, being joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice Thomas would have upheld the law in its entirety, writing that the "decision exemplifies the Court's troubling tendency 'to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue'."

Roberts and Alito would have remanded the case to the Fifth Circuit, which is a common tactic for the Supreme Court when all nine justices are not seated.

Ginsburg is either terribly uninformed, blind or biased.

Life Site reports that 500 Texas women a year are rushed to hospitals from botched abortions---an average of 10 women per week taken to emergency facilities because of botched abortions.

Ginsburg may see that as "rare," but I doubt the women whose lives are in danger see it as rare.

I don't know the number, but it isn't rare to hear of women secretly (when possible) whisked away to hospitals in Washington State for the same reason.

President Obama, not surprisingly, said he is "pleased to see the Supreme Court protect women's rights and health and that restrictions like those in Texas "harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a women's reproduction freedom."

Exactly where does the Constitution address abortion?

Life Site notes that in her speech to Planned Parenthood Friday, June 10, Hillary called this case "the biggest challenge to Roe v. Wade in a generation," reminding pro-life Christians and conservatives of what is at stake in the upcoming election.

Clearly, the secular progressives on the Supreme Court carried the water for the abortion industry.

Donald Trump has promised repeatedly, even offering a list of potentials, to only nominate true conservatives for the Supreme Court.

Will he keep his word? We can't know for sure, but one thing is certain, Hillary Clinton will keep her promise to nominate abortion activists to the highest court in the land.

There are likely 3 Justices, perhaps as many as 4, maybe even 5 who will be replaced over the next 4 to 8 years.

Be Prayerful. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Faithful.

1 comment:

  1. Justice can not be founded on injustice. There was no justice in Roe v. Wade. The father got nothing. Where was his equal protection under the law? The developing human being in the womb got no protection either. So it really wasn't about rights. It was simply an injustice.


Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.