Republican Judicial Crisis

* Republicans to Replace Ginsburg with Pro-Abort

First a bit of history.

* Abortion Nationally is from the Republican Supreme Court
- Roe v. Wade was written by Republican U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun
- The 1973 Roe 7-to-2 opinion was approved with a Republican majority of five votes
- The 1992 landmark Casey opinion upheld "abortion rights" though 8 Republicans and a single pro-life Democrat (who dissented) comprised the court
- In 2012 Republican Chief Justice John Roberts voted to uphold the socialist, pro-abortion Obamacare
- In 2017 Republican Neil Gorsuch became the poster-child for the "pro-life" movement's support for judges who reject the child's God-given right to life (see video below)
- From 1973 to 2020 every Republican justice on the court has agreed with the Democrat Party's platform and the central holding of Roe that the baby is not a person and has no right to life.

Dred Scott Shepardized

News Update: For the complete list of the president's 44 potential Ginsburg replacements, and for the true state of affairs, see kgov.com/republican-judicial-crisis.

Justices Reference Dred Scott 56 Times
Informing Personhood/Abolitionist Strategy
 

Dred Scott, Plaintiff in Error v. John Sandford [sic]* (1857)

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned its own pro-slavery Dred Scott decision 56 times in more than 150 years since issuing their opinion that many blacks and some other humans could be owned as property. What have they said about their own ruling, and what might that tell us about the fight to re-criminalize abortion? To answer these questions American Right To Life commissioned this Shepardization of the Scott opinion, analyzing each reference to that iconic case to better equip those working to protect the innocent.

Dred Scott

The Supreme Court has been mostly positive or neutral in its references to its own pro-slavery Dred Scott decision as documented below. As late as 1992 in an abortion decision they actually make excuses for their own century-old Plessy ruling which upheld law based on the amount of "colored blood" in a person's veins. Both Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott falsely present living human beings as property and not as persons with full human rights. For decades, national pro-life organizations, arguing that the Supreme Court is not ready to overturn its 1973 ruling, have therefore actually opposed constitutional amendment efforts to recognize the personhood and right to life of the unborn child. This review of the court's references to its own atrocious violation of the human rights of millions of enslaved human beings indicates that it is politically naïve to craft a pro-life strategy based primarily on the composition and humility of the court.

$10,000 to name one pro-life Justice

Updated Sept. 18, 2020:

$10,000 Cash Offered to National Right To Life
from American RTL to name 'one' pro-life justice

[CNBC, the Denver Post, Yahoo News, Covenant News, Houston Chronicle, etc., all reported this.]

Denver, CO -- "American Right To Life is offering $10,000 to National RTL," said the group's president Leslie Hanks, "if they can name a single justice on the current U.S. Supreme Court who has ever stated, in an interview or a ruling or even a dissent, that the unborn child has a right to life. The point is that after decades of NRTL’s compromise strategy, there is not a single justice on the court who acknowledges the child’s right to life."

Check Image"In 1981, after president Ronald Reagan agreed he would sign federal personhood legislation for the unborn, National Right to Life and their longtime attorney James Bopp actually opposed that effort claiming they supported a states' rights approach," says the group's site AmericanRTL.org. "A quarter century later notice that NRTL and Bopp have long opposed all state personhood efforts."

In contrast, for the elections in 2008, 2010, and 2014, Colorado pro-lifers turned in a third of a million signatures of registered voters to force statewide referendums to acknowledge in law the personhood of the unborn child, and while the first two campaigns lost, we narrowed the margin from a 3-to-1 defeat to 2-to-1. Everyone needs to fight for the God-given right to life of every innocent child.

For years we have extended this to offer $1,000 to the first person in the general public to provide evidence that a single one of the hundreds of Republican judges in the federal judiciary has ever held, in a ruling, dissent, or otherwise, that the unborn child has a right to life. On 9/17/20 Jason Troyer provided ARTL with evidence that Donald Trump's nominee David Dugan may merit this distinction. ARTL will investigate this promising development and, despite Dugan's strong stand, hopefully will not find any indication that he would uphold regulations legislating how, when, or where an unborn child can be "legally" killed. In the meantime, we renew the offer of $1,000 to the first person who provides evidence of another federal judge (we do, of course, hope there is more than one) who has ever held that the unborn child has a right to life.

Abortion Regs Don't Work, Say Cal's Plummeting Rates

California Abortions Plummet, Without Regulations: (2020 Update) Pro-lifers want to be lied to so they can continue with their comfort-laiden, failed partisan approach toward child killing. California's 16% drop in the abortion rate from 2014 to 2017, and the 60% drop in their annual clinic killings since the 1990s, exposes the lie in the pro-life industry's misuse of statistics. This article explains that abortion rates there and nationally have been dropping even as we lose the war to an immoral culture. For like Colorado, California has enacted no NRTL-approved and-then-you-can-kill-the-baby abortion regulations. Yet California, like Colorado, has seen the same decrease in clinic abortions, while the actual killing remains higher. Here's why.

Heritage Foundation Regulation Analysis Flawed: A popular report advocates increased use of abortion regulations claiming that such laws reduce abortion. Please consider this American RTL analysis of those claims.

False Claims for Abortion Regulations

*Surgical* Abortions Down
Pro-Life Regulations Wrongly Credited

For example:

Colorado enacted no abortion regulations during the years of a much-quoted Heritage Foundation report, yet saw one of the largest drops in reported abortions according to the Colorado Department of Health, from 12,679 in 1990 to 4,215 in 2000. This two-thirds drop in abortions reported by the state is greater than the average drop nationwide in abortion among teenagers of 50% that Dr. New concludes occurred in significant part due to child-killing regulations. How can this be? What's happening with the numbers?

National Right To Life, leading the abortion-regulation movement, promotes the erroneous findings of Michael J. New, Ph.D., who's report was published by the Heritage Foundation in 2007. Titled Analyzing the effect of state legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors, Dr. New claims a positive pro-life result from laws that regulate the killing of unborn children. However, based on the following analysis, abortion regulations may even increase the total number of children killed by abortion. Additionally, there are other factors that can account for some reductions in abortions including increased effectiveness of front-line intervention; the explosion and normalization of non-heterosexual behavior; and other factors causing a drop in overall pregnancy rates.

Heritage Foundation logoDisputing Pro-Life Claims for Regulations: Hundreds of pro-life laws, which are child-killing regulations, undermine personhood and the God-given right to life. As such, American RTL rejects them as immoral, and as counterproductive to the goal of eventual legal protection for the unborn. Further as attested by Professor Charles Rice of the Notre Dame Law School, stalwart legal authority of the pro-life movement, these laws can keep abortion legal for years or decades after Roe v. Wade is eventually merely overturned (hear him in the groundbreaking Focus on the Strategy II documentary). The pro-life movement has a vested interest in claiming these regulations save lives, thus we cannot document any attempts by National RTL to quantify the potential short and long-term negative consequences of these laws. Child-killing regulations prune the abortion weed, and strengthen its root. They make abortion look more reasonable and even humane to millions of women, and voters, and to countless politicians and judges, and even to those many Christians who are apathetic about abortion.

Granted, it would be difficult to quantify the number of children who will be killed after Roe is merely overturned, as pro-life laws become the nails that hold open the abortion clinic doors. Dr. Rice has stated:

"If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you'd have to get rid of the 'pro-life' abortion laws."

For example:

Indiana Code Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... 1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except... if ...the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent…"

Dr. Michael New’s research ignores enormous potential negative effects of abortion regulations as shown above and is therefore fundamentally flawed and gives the pro-life industry a false sense of confidence. This undue confidence could further a pro-life strategy which may result in millions of children killed over years or decades by the permissive authority of the pro-life movement's own regulations.

Netflix & Planned Parenthood: Netflix put Blockbuster out of business. Blockbuster put thousands of mom and pop video stores out of business. This is only the streamlining of the film distribution channel and doesn't mean that people are watching fewer films. Planned Parenthood put many independent abortion mills out of business. (In the 1990s they were even sued FPA, a California abortion chain for unfair business practices. Incidentally, FPA's founder Edward Allred committed Gianna Jessen's "failed" abortion. Gianna's case became public when she testified against another abortionist, William Waddill, accused of strangling another baby who survived his abortion.) Chemical abortifacients, etc., including the Morning After Pill (see 2015 and 2019 reports) are reducing the number of surgical abortions and putting individual abortionists out of business. None of this means that fewer children are being killed by abortion.