This program is being recorded on Thursday, January 27, 2022, five days after the 49th anniversary of the infamous Roe v Wade decision that abolished all laws throughout the United States that restricted abortions, thus declaring open season on children in their pre-natal stage of development and exempting abortion providers from liability for the damage done to the mothers.  The Roe v Wade decision was one of the most egregious, and anti-Constitutional, rulings of the Supreme Court, rivaling the Dred Scott decision, the Plessy v Ferguson decision, Lawrence v Texas, and Obergefell v Hodges.   The Dred Scott decision denied the citizenship of Negros, declared them to be property, and helped precipitate the Civil War of 1861; the Plessy v Ferguson decision affirmed the “separate but equal” policy of segregating white and black children in government schools, condemning black children to substandard educational facilities; Lawrence v Texas abolished all anti-sodomy laws and opened the door to the legitimization of total sexual anarchy; Obergefell v Hodges legitimized same-sex marriage, thus declaring war on reality, undermining the social fabric, and calling Jesus Christ a liar (Mark 10:6-7 from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 11-12 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery).

As a disclaimer, politically I am an active member of the Republican Party.  I am pro-life because I support Biblical morality and the US Constitution, which, per the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, guarantees us that our right to life can’t be taken from us without due process of law.  The Democrat Party will not accept people who are pro-life, so I can’t be a Democrat.  Abortion is almost a sacrament to the people who control the Democrat Party, a fact that I intend to substantiate during this program based on political and monetary solicitations that I have received from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  Why they would send me such solicitations is puzzling.  

I am a Republican, but I am not a party hack.  I took an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to advance any particular political organization.  For that reason, I refer to myself as a centrist: I support politically those who support the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence and their underlying principles.  

Before I continue, I want to remind us all of Dr. Stan Monteith’s opening statement on his program “Radio Liberty,” which was broadcast on the American Christian Network for many years.  Dr. Monteith always opened his program with the following statement: “Reality is usually scoffed at; illusion is usually king.  But in the battle for the survival of Western Civilization it will be reality, not illusion or delusion, that will determine what the outcome will be.”  Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote an essay entitled “Live Not by Lies.”  In it, he urged people to always conform to the truth and never go along with lies, even if the consequences were unpleasant or harmful.  Solzhenitsyn’s fervent embrace of the truth resulted in him spending 8 years in a gulag in the former Soviet Union and eventually caused him to be exiled.  Only if we, as individuals, are willing to stand for the truth no matter what, we will remain free from subjugation.  Jesus said: John 8:32 ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.  

"The Supreme Court recognized that abortion does fall under women's privacy rights.

[My comments: The 14th Amendment reads, in part: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  In other words, you can’t be executed, incarcerated, or fined without having your day in court with the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  I don’t see any “right to privacy,” nor does privacy have anything to do with killing your child.  The supreme justices justified their ruling by appealing to a concept they call “emanations from the penumbra.”  In other words, they act as dictators with no constraints.  This is legislating from the bench and a violation of the Constitution, which limits all legislative powers to the Congress, per Article I, Section 1. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.”  When the judges can conjure “penumbras” to justify their decisions in contradiction of the US Constitution, the Constitution becomes simply a stage prop.]

The justices acknowledged that being forced to continue a pregnancy puts a lot at risk for women, such as:

• Physical health
• Mental health
• Financial burdens
• Social stigma

[My comments Terminating a pregnancy via abortion is also risky for the physical and mental health of the woman.  Killing your child will relieve financial burdens but giving the child up for adoption would achieve the same result without the guilt of being responsible for the death of your child via abortion.  Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, as documented in the article “Update on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: Lessons Learned from Asia” By Joel Brind, PhD, which was published by afterabortion.org 08/13/19. “In 2013, Hubei Huang et al. published a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) on abortion and breast cancer just in mainland China.[9] In just over two decades (1988 – 2012), there were no less than 36 individual studies on women in China. Huang et al. reporting a statistically significant 44 percent increase in breast cancer risk for women with one or more abortion, which went up to 76 percent for women with two or more abortions, and up to 89 percent increased risk for women with three or more abortions.”]

The Court was skeptical of the state's argument that Constitutional protections begin at conception. The Constitution doesn't provide a definition of a "person." But, it does say that its protections cover those who are "born or naturalized" in the United States. After examining other cases relating to unborn children, the Court concluded that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

The Roe v. Wade decision also includes a discussion of the different views on when life begins. Many in the Jewish faith, for example, believe that life begins at birth. But, the prevailing view in the Catholic faith is that life begins at conception. Doctor's views vary, but they tend to lean toward the belief that life begins sometime before birth.

[My comments: The Jewish faith to which the justices refer differs from the Bible.  Genesis 25:21-24 And Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren: and the Lord was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the Lord. And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Psalm 139:13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

Isaiah 44:24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Humanism, that the elite are gods, seems to be the religion that is the foundation of the ethics to which the court appealed.]

But, the Court found, it is not up to the states to decide when life begins:

"[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

[My comments: The court did not have the benefit of ultrasound to reveal the humanity of the child in the prenatal state of development, but they did know, or should have known, that once the egg is fertilized an entirely new and unique human being is created.  A human being that has unique DNA from the mother, can have a different blood type, and may be a different gender.  Science and the Bible have established once and for all that we are human beings from the moment of conception.  We are thus creatures made in God’s image.  Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.]

Sarah Weddington was just 26 years old when she argued before the Supreme Court as one of Roe's attorneys.  She was born Sarah Ragle on February 5, 1945, in Abilene, Texas, to Lena Catherine and Herbert Doyle Ragle, a Methodist minister. As a child, she was president of the Methodist youth fellowship at her church, played the organ, and sang in the church choir.  In 1967, during her third year of law school, Weddington became pregnant by Ron Weddington and travelled to Mexico for an illegal abortion.  She married Ron Weddington in 1968, and they divorced in 1974.  She died on December 26, 2021.  She aborted her only child.

Weddington first stated her case in front of a three-judge district court in May 1970 in Dallas. The district court agreed that the Texas abortion laws were unconstitutional, but the state appealed the decision, landing it before the United States Supreme Court. Weddington appeared before the Supreme Court in 1971 and again in the fall of 1972. At the time of her first Supreme Court presentation, Weddington was 26 years old and had never tried a legal case. The Court's decision was ultimately handed down in January 1973, overturning Texas’ abortion law by a 7-2 majority and legalizing abortion throughout the United States.  Sarah Weddington remains the youngest person ever to have successfully argued a case before the US Supreme Court.

Tax Funded Abortion As Population Control

The legalization of abortion was predicted in a speech by Dr. Richard Day, a former medical director of Planned Parenthood, to a group of physicians in March 1969, nearly four years before Roe v Wade.  During his speech, Dr. Day said "Abortion will no longer be a crime." Abortion will be accepted as normal and would be paid for by taxes for people who could not pay for their own abortions. Contraceptives would be made available by tax money so that nobody would have to do without contraceptives. If school sex programs would lead to more pregnancies in children, that was really seen as no problem. Parents who think they are opposed to abortion on moral or religious grounds will change their minds when it is their own child who is pregnant. So this will help overcome opposition to abortion. Before long, only a few die-hards will still refuse to see abortion as acceptable, and they won't matter anymore.

In other words, the powers that shouldn’t be had already determined to legalize abortion.  All they needed was a test case, the outcome of which had already been predetermined.  The court case was simply theater, and the outcome was as predictable as professional wrestling.

Earlier in the program I said that abortion is almost a sacrament in the Democrat party.  To substantiate my contention, I want to read some of the email messages that I have received from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Justice Sotomayor sounds the alarm on new anti-abortion ruling: “This case is a disaster for the rule of law and a grave disservice to women.”  Justice Sotomayor has made it abundantly clear: Reproductive rights are in grave danger. [Roe v Wade was a travesty and contrary to precedent and the foundational principles of the US.]

The Supreme Court is the closest it's ever been to OVERTURNING nearly 50 years of precedent and letting Republicans BAN abortion, and if they succeed, Americans seeking reproductive health care could have their rights stripped away.  [Abortion is not health care.  Talk about euphemisms.]

My email address is [email protected].

Ron Higgins

© Copyright 2022 Liberty and Posterity