Johnston: The End of Abortion on Demand in Sight?

Is it possible that abortion on demand, the bread and butter of the killing fields of Planned Parenthood is on the way out?  If I were a predictor, I suggest the compromise by the Supreme Court will be to repeal Roe v Wade—instead use the 10th Amendment and return abortion to the States for policy.

“On behalf of the Biden Administration, the Solicitor General asserted that a woman’s right to kill her child is a vital right, but that surrendering her ‘right to be a parent’ is just as vital. We must not ask that mother to terminate parental power, “surrendering parental rights is a monumental decision.”

Now while many of these children are subsequently adopted, her assertion of ‘abandoning her ‘motherhood’ isn’t actually true. In California the mother has at least 2 weeks to reassert her mothering authority. ‘No shame/no blame/no names’. So the child lives and the mother goes on in life, guilt free of abandonment or intentionally killing. Even open adoption can be arranged. Yes, in open adoption she can know the child for the rest of her life, if she so wishes.”

Newsom repeals the death penalty for murderers, but then promotes the expansion of killing of babies, without a trial or anyone protecting the legal rights of the baby.  Democrats are anxious to protect criminals and kill the innocent.  Confusing.

Johnston: The End of Abortion on Demand in Sight?

Brian Johnston, California Pro-Lif,  12/4/21   Exclusive to the California Political News and Views   http://www.californiaprolife.org/

On December 1st I listened to the oral arguments in Dobbs, the Mississippi abortion law heard before the Supreme Court. Among other things, Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States, argued vehemently against the overturn of Roe v Wade.

At one point she was asked by Justice Barrett about laws across the nation that promote the surrender of vulnerable newborns at fire stations. These are known as ‘safe-harbor’ laws. We have such a law here in California – as do most states. They arose in answer to the ‘trashcan baby’ phenomena that got widespread media attention at the turn of the century.  Young pregnant women would hide their pregnancies. Then, when they gave birth, in panicked denial simply throw the child in a dumpster or abandon the child in some other manner. 

I personally champion those laws. They save lives. They bring the care of the community immediately to that young mother and to that child who would otherwise be thrown in the trash. They promise no legal repercussion for the mother, and only kindness and care in response. These laws have saved many lives.

I have several adopted friends, and they too love these ‘safe harbor’ laws.

As the Solicitor General answered questions from Justice Barrett, the ‘General’ made it clear she does not like those laws. (You see, they give respect to the life of that child.) But Justice Barrett insisted that she clarify her point. 

On behalf of the Biden Administration, the Solicitor General asserted that a woman’s right to kill her child is a vital right, but that surrendering her ‘right to be a parent’ is just as vital. We must not ask that mother to terminate parental power, “surrendering parental rights is a monumental decision.”

Now while many of these children are subsequently adopted, her assertion of ‘abandoning her ‘motherhood’ isn’t actually true. In California the mother has at least 2 weeks to reassert her mothering authority. ‘No shame/no blame/no names’. So the child lives and the mother goes on in life, guilt free of abandonment or intentionally killing. Even open adoption can be arranged. Yes, in open adoption she can know the child for the rest of her life, if she so wishes.

Think about it: abortion advocates assert those ‘safe-haven’ laws are evil because the woman is potentially, ‘giving up her right to be a parent.’   Really? Honestly?

But demanding the killing of your own child doesn’t give up your role and responsibility of being a parent?   There is something stunningly odd in this simultaneous admission of both responsibility for the child and the child’s clear need for protection. One need not be ‘a Solomon’ to recognize the absurdity of this deadly assertion.

It’s interesting. This time of year, the ASPCA strongly supports adoption of sad and vulnerable puppies. That’s a good thing. They would like you to care for, even ‘adopt’ those animals. No one should want animals harmed or abandoned. The whole point of those moving ads on TV is that we need to respect the life of those puppies.

But wouldn’t it be nice if adoption were cheerfully extended to human ‘puppies’ as well?  To our own vulnerable young?

The Solicitor General of the United States adamantly prefers not. 

Apparently, the spirit of the season only extends so far.

Brian Johnston is the Chairman of the California ProLife Council, and author of Evil Twins, Roe and Doe: How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing.Available on Amazon and wherever fine books are sold.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. The BREAD & BUTTER of the abortion industry is not on demand abortion. It is late term abortion because fully formed baby parts are considerably more valuable when sold in the Baby Parts Marketplace.

Speak Your Mind

*