Life Matters

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston explains how the pro-life movement, and every political movement throughout history, has been successful:

By organizing educating and motivating on the local level.

The National Right to Life Committee is composed of 50 separate organizations, one in each state. In turn, each of these state affiliates are comprised of local volunteers and chapters which address the right to life issue within their own community.

Brian addresses the methods by which the civics of each community should be engaged, in particular during elections. If pro-life candidates can be educated and encouraged, and pro-life voters educated and encouraged to vote for pro-life candidates, each and every community will be transformed from School Board, to City Council, to County Supervisors and up the ladder to the State Legislature and Congress itself.

This model has proven successful wherever applied. Brian shares several stories regarding effective pro-life organizing in those states which are ready for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and why that approach is the only way that our movement can expect to be successful.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston takes an in-depth analysis of the state laws recently examined by the Supreme Court. He explains, in particular, the Texas law which authorizes private individuals taking civil action against an abortionist.

While Brian's educational background is in comparative languages, he has worked for many years in the legal world, not only as an advocate (lobbyist) for many years in Sacramento and the various state capitols of the West, but as a young man he spent several years working as an assistant at a Los Angeles entertainment law firm.

Drawing on this experience, Brian explains the stark contrast between the two states' abortion laws recently considered by the US Supreme Court.

The Louisiana law simply draws a line at 15 weeks gestation and prohibits abortion beyond that date. The Texas law - the so-called "heartbeat law" - requires an abortionist to check the gestation of the pregnancy and if it's six weeks or more, to also check for the beating heart of the child.

As the human heartbeat can be monitored as early as 18 to 21 days from conception, any competent medical professional would be able to find the heartbeat of the six week-old child.

But the most important aspect of the Texas law is that it does not create a crime when an abortionist performs an abortion. Instead it allows any individual citizen who is harmed by an abortion to be able to seek relief in civil court for that harm.

Brian goes to great lengths to explain the dramatic difference in the two types of law - civil and criminal. They require completely different standards of evidence, and offer very different answers for the harms done by the lawbreaker.

The discussion of prosecutorial discretion is particularly important.

The best and most startling example of the contrast between civil and criminal law can be found in the two cases of O.J. Simpson and the Simpson-Brown murders. While the criminal trial dragged on for weeks and ultimately ended in an acquittal, when the Brown family had a chance to sue O.J. for the harm of killing their daughter and sister, the case was settled in an afternoon.

He was found guilty, and because they had clear standing. They suffered clear arms because of his actions, and were given an award of millions of dollars. This can hardly compensate for the intentional loss of life, but the purpose of the civil law is to give individuals their day in court and the ability to address an injustice, a serious wrong done to them .

Brian gives several humorous examples of why the difference between civil and criminal law should be very clear to all of us.

As a point of fact, in modern society you can be sued for nearly anything. Whether that suit will prevail is another matter. But if serious harm has been done and you can demonstrate standing to the court that YOU were harmed by an abortion, an individual - such as the father of the child, or the grandparents of the aborted child, clearly have a very, very reasonable case in seeking justice for the unnecessary destruction of that life.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the implications of the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade prohibited all states from legally protecting children because it did not allow prosecution of abortionist doctors. Roe v. Wade was actually the combination of two conjoined decisions Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

In fact Roe v. Wade did not enforce a trimester system as commonly believed, because a powerful loophole exception was placed under Doe v. Bolton, allowing for abortion whenever the abortionist felt it might be appropriate for "health" reasons. Cases of health could include psychological emotional and sociological factors.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned it will not outlaw a single abortion, it will merely allow the various states to once again ensure protection under the law for unborn children. Twenty-one states have already passed laws that will immediately take affect if Roe is overturned. But many states - California chief amongst them - will have to pass legislation to protect children once again. California will prove very difficult.

Brian outlines that despite our current governor's commitment to unlimited abortion, and the state legislature's resolve to support abortion as a "choice" there will be many things that local pro-lifers can do to impact their own community. If they exercise the civic process they can dramatically work to help limit the influence of the abortion industry in their towns and cities.

Taking back state and congressional office will be determined by the local voters of a community. If they are working to elect school board and city council members, those same voters will also vote for Assembly, Senate and Congressional candidates. it is a trickle up principle of pro-life voting instead of trickle down.

All politics is local. Pro-lifers must make a commitment to the civic process and that commitment begins in their own local community.

Roe v. Wade didn't give women anything. What it did do is give doctors the right to kill babies.

"Roe really isn't about the woman's choice... It's about the doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.It was not woman centered. It was physician centered." - Ruth Bader Ginsburg, University of Chicago lecture May 10, 2013

The media doesn't tell you this. Very few people understand Roe. It is in fact an amalgam of two separate decisions that were then 'conjoined' by the Court. Roe v. Wade addressed a Texas

law. Doe v. Bolton dismissed the abortion laws of Georgia. On Jan 22nd, 1973, they were both handed down simultaneously and "conjoined" by the Court as one ruling. Many now call this conjoined action "Roe" or "the Roe regime." Though they dealt with two different states, and each has very different tone, the net effect of the combined decision was to strike down not only those two states' laws, but the laws of every other state as well!

In the Doe portion of the decision, the author, Justice Blackmun, inserted a special 'health exception.' He intentionally defined it in the broadest possible terms. The reasons need not be written down, but only exist, 'in the judgement of the doctor.' If the abortionist felt there may be any sociological or psychological implications for that woman's motherhood, "all of these things may be considered health. (Roe and Doe @183). A physically healthy child could be killed inside of a physically healthy mother – throughout pregnancy – if his judgement called for it.

In dissent, Justice White summed up this late term, 'psychobabble' exception:

"… for anyone of such reasons, or no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health… [it was now to be legal for] any medical advisor willing to take up the procedure…. I dissent." (Roe and Doe dissent @221).

It's funny how media analysts avoid any discussion of this 'little' exception.

Since then, the media narrative has reduced the debate, and simply summed all this up as, 'a woman's choice.' The media is intent on simplifying issues for consumption. But such simplicity often comes at the cost of stultifying its consumers as well. That's us.

If you examine her statement carefully, Justice Ginsburg was right: the conjoined, twin decisions of Roe and Doe are clear. The choice and decision are the abortionist's alone. The woman, even if 'uncomfortable,' simply needs to go along with what 'the doctor' has in mind. A killing profession was pulled from centuries of shadows. It was given license and legitimacy on that day.

For millennia, the Hippocratic Oath had unequivocally condemned this killing of vulnerable children. And legally, abortion has always been frowned on by the law since at least Common Law times and in many cases long before that. But Blackmun and his fellows declared the healing profession turned on its head. Doctors were now free to be fully licensed killers. Their personal thoughts and judgments considered supreme in life or death.

The Oath and its centuries of influence on law and society were pronounced dead via Roe and Doe. 'If babies are to be killed, then a professional will do it.'

Today's USSC

In the oral arguments of this December 1st, Justice Kavanaugh very politely complimented abortion advocates, but summed up the challenge in contemplating Roe.

There are two competing interests and legal principles at stake, he said. The one, "the liberty interest," (or 'right to choose') was forcefully and effectively presented by the Solicitor General of the United States, who was arguing the case. He gave her a 'hat tip.' But the other competing interest is the right to life which is at stake. These two interests exist in direct variance. We cannot 'split the difference': either one or the other will dominate. They cannot,"both win."

The other five pro-life Justices who are oft-times silent, also offered questions and comments - yes, each spoke – and confirmed their pro-life positions.

The three, abortion-supporting Justices: Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer, not only commented, but with acerbic resignation seemed to ooze bitterness. Their jibes about contrary 'political decisions,' and the 'danger to the court;' their affection for 'court precedence' all seemed to aim directly at influencing the Chief Justice. Their implications: 'If you do this, our Democrat Party may need to change the structure of this Court. We will pack it.'

Chief Justice Roberts, known to be very susceptible to pressure regarding the image and nature of the Court, made statements that seemed to be supportive of the Mississippi law and of its 15-week limit. But this desire to 'split the difference,' while seeming to 'cross the line' that Roe had drawn, is in fact in direct variance with Justice Kavanaugh's open statement that you can't somehow cut the baby in two' and 'allow both the liberty interest and the right to life be given equal weight.'

While there are six openly pro-life votes on the Court, I urge you not to use the simplistic media analysis: 'It's a black and white, apolitical-head count.' Yes, the hearing bodes well for life. But I sat with colleagues in 1992 as we read the result of the Casey decision. Remember, that Pennsylvania law was, "going to bring down Roe."

But Casey itself was, as they say in boxing, a split decision.

Few of the judges really agreed. The result was that Casey had to be 'cobbled together.' At the end of the day, Roe was in fact still upheld! Each of the justices had gone in different, nuanced directions. This became what the court officially calls a "joint decision." Some judges upheld portions of the Pennsylvania law yet insisted on striking others. There was no clear majority.

Justice Blackmun, Roe's author, was still on the court in 1992. Predictably, his decision in Casey proudly upheld Roe.

Back in Casey, then Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist voted with a plurality - Scalia, White, and Thomas, to 'adjust' Roe ( he did not have the votes to overturn.) But he attempted to continue to dismantle it.

The Court jettisoned the false and deceptive 'trimester' framework, (Has the media EVER told you that the trimester system was long-ago ruled meaningless and arbitrary? The Court also conceded that there was not in fact, a'fundamental right' to abortion. Does ANY local, or even national reporter ever comment on that? Nope. The actual status of abortion law is continually misrepresented by a simplistic media.)

But after Casey, and despite loss of credibility, Roe still stood. But in a simplistically meaningless salute to 'choice' and the legal folly of stare decisis (the legal insistence that a 'previous decision continue to stand'). Chief Justice Rehnquist stated in his ruling,

"Roe continues to exist, but only in the way that a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere façade to give the illusion of reality... Behind the façade an entirely new method of analysis without any roots in constitutional law…" Casey Joint Decision, 1992

For us today, the question for 2022 is: What will this Court now do?

You just read that Chief Justices will throw their decisions in surprisingly unlikely corners - this to help frame and 'craft' the final decisions their colleagues may be offering.

Will Justice Roberts, widely known for such politicking, try that? Will he attempt to 'split the difference' yet again? But with five other solid lifers, could he? I fully expect the old façade known as Roe to topple. This diseased tree will indeed fall. But in which direction?

A bigger issue, that is almost never addressed, undergirds this entire debate: "Will doctors be free to continue in their now 50-year-old license to do what they want, even to kill? Justice Ginsburg, and a handful of others, knew this issue just never gets discussed.

Whatever happens in the coming decision, you can expect the major media to enjoy the controversy. Just don't expect them to get it right.

-----

Here's a nice thought: the media has stopped talking about the Texas abortion law heard by the court two weeks earlier. But that law is powerful. The Court has allowed it to remain in effect. Abortions have come to a halt in Texas.

So, the media has joined in the terrified silence of the abortion industry regarding that law.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Court decided to rule on Texas as well? Then, as they did in 1973, perhaps issue a conjoined decision, but this time protecting the right of unborn children to be protected and honored under the law?

Brian Johnston is the author of Evil Twins - Roe and Doe: How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing available on Amazon and wherever fine books are sold.

In this episode of Life Matters Commissioner Johnston explores the statements and teachings of radical-feminist theory, specifically as expressed by Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He repeats her quotes from the bench and shares her comments from later interviews.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg openly quoted Marx from from the bench of the United States Supreme Court. But does not give him attribution. Very few I have read Marx nor do they understand the sweeping cultural dictates of the Marxist philosophy. They are therefore ignorant of these ideas when couched in progressive culture and then placed directly into the laws of our nation by the highest court of land. When Justice Blackmun reviewed the various feminist arguments submitted in the amicus briefs for Roe v. Wade in Doe v Bolton, he did not recognize those assertions as coming directly from the statements of Karl Marx. But they did. There is only one political philosophy in the history of mankind that has asserted the idea that unlimited abortions are an essential premise of political success. That political philosophy is Marxism. Brian shares portions from his book "Evil Twins- Roe and Doe: How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing." In embracing abortion on demand, the twin decisions also instructed and authorize the medical profession to do what he has always sworn to never do, intentionally kill human beings. Brian explains how this dramatic embrace of Marxist ideology, the dismissal of a governments duty towards human lives, and the companion distraction of the medical professions ethical standards has left us in America vulnerable to government use of medicine against the most vulnerable individuals of our society. This can only be resolved through the intentional restoration of the right to life.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the vital importance of the Hippocratic Oath for retaining the values of Western Civilization - respect for the vulnerable innocent.

Reading portions from his book, Evil Twins - Roe and Doe: How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing, Brian underscores the incredible significance of these decisions in assaulting and redefining the healing role of the medical profession. Astoundingly, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg openly condemned the Roe and Doe decisions for licensing doctors to kill as they saw fit, but not actually giving women any rights at all!

The program includes extensive commentary on the importance of re-establishing the Oath and proclamation of the Rome declaration of ethical doctors who are calling the medical profession back to its roots, and reaffirming the Hippocratic Oath.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston examines, in-depth, the surprising news that the Supreme Court is accelerating its review of Roe versus Wade. November 1, 2021 the Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in the case of the new Texas law known as the "Heartbeat Bill".

Abortion radicals are deeply alarmed at the impact of allowing the Texas measure to stay in affect, which the Supreme Court has done up until this point. The Biden administration, fulfilling its loyalty to the abortion industry, has pledged to use every aspect of the federal government to stop this Texas measure.

The passionate desire to overturn the Texas law has precipitated the Justice Department to not only request a full hearing on the Texas measure immediately, they have specifically requested a ruling on the possibility that it may lead to the overturn of Roe versus Wade.

In addition to establishing a beating human heart as a definitive, objective measure of the presence of a human life, the Texas bill (SB 8) also allows private individuals to sue abortionists.

This novel approach of individual civil actions has brought great alarm and consternation to the abortion industry. This aspect has been grossly mischaracterized and maligned by the media and the abortion industry.

Private civil action will need to be assessed by local judges, and the propriety of individual litigants is always determined by local judges. Abortion advocates assert that the law will spawn nuisance lawsuits.

But 'nuisance lawsuits' are, in fact, relatively common in normal civil court already. These courts stand ready to determine appropriate litigation. Determining the individual's propriety as litigant is one of the first duties of local civil courts.

Finally, the state's compelling interest to protect individual lives emanates from the undergirding principle in normal society that stronger individuals have a moral duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The 10th Amendment clearly outlines the rights and responsibilities of the federal government as emanating from the originating rights of the individual, and the individual states.

The federal government's duties are, in fact, a reflection of more primordial rights and duties of human beings. As such, the authority of the government, is in fact, a reflection of the inherent authority and rights of the individual.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston discusses why it's good to get old and how the language and words we use can dramatically impact our attitudes towards our own aging and towards the aging of others.

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal (9/24/21), examines how in Japan, demographically the oldest nation in the world, they have begun to re-define what the meaning of what 'old' is. For example, the city of Nagano is officially changing its legal definition of "elderly". Beginning next year, in order to keep residents active and engaged in their lives, what is considered 'old' now, 65 or over, will only apply linguistically and legally at age 75.

Nagano was the site of the 1998 Winter Olympics. Now the new definition will reduce the proportion of its population classified as 'elderly' to just 16% from 30% of the population under the old definition, transitioning it from one of the oldest to one of the youngest cities in Japan.

Ironically, the values, language, and legal definitions in the United States are moving in the opposite direction. Not only is the idea of age and senior 'senility,' looked down upon in the United States, but many leaders and progressive government link thinkers, are advocating that 75 is actually the time to die. Seriously.

With the increase in the routine denial of medical treatment, and the stunning government actions of intentional exposure to Covid-19, an intentional non-treatment of the elderly in both the states of New York and California, the cultural shift and values and language are becoming more apparent.

With the introduction of Obamacare, the idea of a single-payer, government-sponsored and controlled health system, brought a new view of "appropriate" care for the elderly.

The intentional installation of seniors and giving them exposure to Covid, with the concomitant non-treatment and isolation was a stunning government response by the governors of New York in California in 2020. Tens of thousands of seniors were intentionally sent to die, for the supposed "greater good."

At the height of the Obamacare debate the Atlantic magazine published an extensive article by Ezekiel Emmanuel. He was one of the policy figures essential to the healthcare debate within the Obama administration, and the brother of Obama Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

"Why I hope to die at 75: an argument that society and families - and you - will be better off if nature takes it's course swiftly and promptly," raised some concerns in the pro-life community, but was largely greeted by knowing nods of agreement by the academic and media elite. 'Who wants to be senile?'

But the open public comment if not 'instruction' (remember the subtitle… "you will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly.') and the not-so-camouflaged derision of senility brings a great risk. The Covid reaction is but the tip of a not so hidden iceberg. As far as the demographics of aging and population, the United States is not far behind Japan.

Brian is free to admit his personal inclination toward a Christian worldview, and points out that that perspective is, in fact, much more accommodating and closer to the Japanese embrace of the elderly than the new progressive ideology of American healthcare.

He gives several examples from both Old and New Testament, and the values that once were a foundation for our American culture, and Western Civilization itself. Honoring the elderly and embracing long lines for ourselves is nicely summed up in Deuteronomy 5:16: "Honor your father and mother as the Lord your God has commanded you. That your days may be prolonged and then it may go well with you and the land which the Lord your God gives you.." This was literally a commandment to us as individuals and to our culture as a whole.

The Christian influenced worldview of Western Civilization, as well as many old and established cultures revere the elderly and see it as a duty to honor, rather than disparage old age. Psalm 71:9; Proverbs 23:22; Proverbs 17:6, Psalm 91:16 and the list goes on and on.

Our culture is being invited to change its view of the elderly, to no longer view aging as a good thing, to avoid maturity with its challenges and wisdom, to embrace what is new, what is young, what is fashionably elite. But the cost is great. It is very great. It is not only the loss of lives and wisdom, but may include the loss of our civilization itself.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explorers what happened in the 2021 recall election of Governor Gavin Newsom.

Previous episodes leading up to the recall prepared listeners for the fact that it would be a difficult task and that aside from simply voting 'YES' on the recall, there was a great need to also vote for a replacement.

Brian explains how, for the first time in California history, the Democrat party demanded that there be no Democrat replacement even suggested, and promised to punish any Democrat officeholder who presented themselves as a possible replacement candidate. All government employee unions instructed their members to only vote 'NO', and under the strong possibility of social exclusion, there was to be no discussion or suggestion of supporting a replacement.

In addition to the multiple millions spent by these government employee unions, outside leftist money from the likes of political provocateurs like George Soros poured into the state.

But Brian is not discouraged. All along, this particular effort was a long shot. The great advantage is that it brought serious question on the nature of both the Democrat party and the policies of the governor. What it has done is prepared conscientious voters for the very real election that is now upon us, the elections of 2022.

Every Congressional district, State Assembly and Senate district will have new boundaries in the coming year. Recent efforts by California Prolife and other politically attentive organizations have encourage people to vote and be involved in the most local elections - county supervisors, city councils, school boards. It is this level of civic involvement that can have the most dramatic change. And because these diffuse elections are harder for both the media and the Democrat party machinery to focus on, the odds of gaining seats on all of these levels have increased dramatically for the year 2022.

Instead of being discouraged about the recall, it is merely the first salvo in an ongoing political war and the great advantage is that it was initiated by those that have had enough and are unwilling to simply walk away from their responsibilities as citizens.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston issues a special update regarding the actual status of Texas law SB-8. When it was signed into law by Governor Abbot of Texas, pro-abortion forces immediately sought to have it stayed by the courts, to prevent it from going into effect. This request was sent up to the US Supreme Court and specifically to Justice Alito, who is responsible for the sixth district federal court of appeals. He referred the matter to the full court.

The US Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the law, it simply stated it was not appropriate to stop or enjoin the law until it has been reviewed by the lower courts.

The media immediately swung into action and decried the Supreme Court for following its principles and standard procedures. Abortion advocates in the media are seeking to gin-up their grassroots supporters - requesting among other things - a demand to pack the US Supreme Court and to question all pro-life laws because supposedly this was now the overturn of I.

This media analysis is grossly mis-representative and is designed to create a pro-abortion climate in the public sentiment. It is not an honest analysis of the facts of the case.

In the second half of the program, Brian interviews Jenny Rae Le Roux, candidate for governor. This is part of the ongoing interviews with pro-life candidates seeking to replace Gavin Newsom.