the great american lie

"No collection of U.S. Supreme Court opinions has been more misrepresented to the general public, than Roe v. Wade and its jurisprudential progeny."

These words of Francis J. Beckwith, a current American philosopher, scholar, and author, are just one representation of the countless dissenting arguments posed against the famous case that legalized abortion on demand. The ever-popular online source Wikipedia calls Roe v. Wade "a landmark case... one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history."

So, what did Roe v. Wade actually conclude on that fateful day 37 years ago?

The case concerned Jane Roe (a.k.a. Norma McCorvey), a 22-year-old Texan who claimed to be pregnant as a result of gang rape (which was found to be a false claim years after the Court issued its opinion). Seeking an abortion, Roe sued the state of Texas, which, at the time, only allowed for abortion if the mother's life was in danger. She first filed a class action suit in the federal district court in Dallas in 1970. This federal court ruled that the Texas law was unconstitutionally vague and over-broad, claiming it infringed on a woman's right to reproductive freedom.* Thus, the state of Texas appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where the case had to be argued twice before it. Nearly three years later, on January 22, 1973, the Court issued Roe v. Wade, declaring that the Texas law was unconstitutional— and that not only must all states, including Texas, permit abortions in cases of rape, but in all other cases as well.

Does the American public fully understand the scope of what the Court declared as a constitutional right that day? The current law in the U.S. does not restrict a woman from getting an abortion for practically any reason she deems fit during the entire nine months of pregnancy. When I tell that to my pro-choice friends, they are almost always shocked; but that is the truth. Perfectly healthy, nine-month-old, ready-to-be-born, "full-size" babies are legally killed in the U.S. every single day, for no reason other than that their mothers would rather not have them. If that's not horrifying, I don't know what is.**

So, how did this happen? Where did the Court find an apparent right to abortion?

The Court had already established a right to contraceptive use by married couples followed by single people based on the right of privacy, so wanted to use this as a kind of precedent for protecting abortion under the right of privacy, too. But, to make this move, there were two legal impediments that Justice Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court Justice at the time (see image) had to eradicate: 1) Anti-abortion laws had been in the books in virtually every U.S. state since the start of the 19th century— each with a primary purpose of protecting the unborn from unjust killing. And 2) Constitutionally, the unborn is a person protectable under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, to justify abortion, Blackmun had to first account for the purpose of all anti-abortion laws in the U.S. from the past 170+ years, and then demonstrate that the unborn are not persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. He started out with the conclusion he wanted to find, and then set out for a way to defend it.

Blackmun argued that the purpose of anti-abortion laws was not to protect the unborn, but rather to protect the pregnant woman from a dangerous medical procedure. So, because abortion was now a safer procedure, he claimed, there was no reason to prohibit it. But Blackmun was wrong about the primary purpose of anti-abortion laws. Although protecting the woman was an important purpose of these statutes, it was secondary to their primary purpose of protecting pre-born children from harm. Law professor James S. Witherspoon conclusively established this in what is perhaps the most definitive scholarly article on the subject. After an extensive analysis of these 19th century regulations, their legislative histories, and the political climate in which they were passed, Witherspoon concluded that the terms of the statutes themselves prove their primary purpose in protecting the unborn. The terms include the following elements:

1) an increased range of punishment for abortion if it were proven that the attempt killed the child

2) the same punishment for attempted abortions killing the unborn as for attempted abortions killing the mother

3) the designation of abortion as "manslaughter"

4) the prohibition of all abortions except those necessary to save the mother's life

5) multiple references to the fetus as both a "child" and a "person"

6) the categorization of abortion with homicide and other offenses against born children

7) severe punishments for abortions

8) the provision that attempted abortion killing the mother is only a felony rather than murder

9) the definition of abortion as "destroying the child"

10) the incrimination of the woman's participation in her own abortion

Furthermore, legislative histories of these statutes recognize the personhood of the unborn child. Clearly, Blackmun's first attempt to find the fundamental right to abortion fails by means of at least ten pieces of evidence within 19th century U.S. anti-abortion laws. Blackmun never accounted for a single one of them.

Next, Blackmun enlisted the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that the unborn is not a person. He maintained that the Constitution does not define 'person' and went on to list all the places in it in which the word "person" is mentioned, including the Fourteenth Amendment ("the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators," "the Appointment Clause," "the Migration and Importation provision," etc.) He then concluded that "in nearly all of these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application postnatally" with "no possible prenatal application." Really, Blackmun? No possible prenatal application? Blackmun's attempted reasoning failed again inasmuch as he begged the question. For readers unfamiliar with this term, a person begs the question when he assumes the very point he is trying to make, or argues circularly. Blackmun fell into this logical fallacy, for none of the provisions, as he admitted, define a 'person' and thus could not possibly exclude the unborn. Thus, ultimately, Blackmun came to naught with both his first and second attempts to find the legal right to abortion (Beckwith, Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice).

But Blackmun is not the only actor in this case who was deceptive. Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff previously mentioned, later admitted to her complete fabrication of her story of gang rape that won her case. In the 1980's, McCorvey revealed herself to be the "pawn" of a young and ambitious lawyer named Sarah Weddington who needed a plaintiff with whom she could set out to change Texas law regarding abortion. McCorvey, who today says she was "young" and "dumb," was blatantly used to further Weddington's personal agenda. Little did McCorvey know, her case would legalize abortion in all 50 states (priestsforlife.org).

Though she won her case, Norma McCorvey has never had an abortion; she gave birth to the little girl who she wanted to abort and has dedicated her life to the Pro-Life Movement for the past 16 years through public speaking, political action, and her own pro-life ministry, Roe No More. In 2003, she became the plaintiff in McCorvey v. Hill, a second lawsuit filed to take back and reverse the Court's criminal decision 30 years before. Roe v. Wade is the only case in U.S. Supreme Court history in which the plaintiff won and later asked for a reversed opinion. McCorvey feels incredible remorse and shame for the 51 millions babies who have been killed as a result of her case— a case in which, unbeknownst to her, she was manipulated and used by a pro-abortion extremist to scar America forever. Meet Norma by watching her 1 minute ad below:

Today, on the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade some 400,000 pro-lifers gathered at our nation's capital for the annual March for Life. Knowing full well the duplicity of that decision, they stood up against the great American lie that is abortion. Thousands of women and men from the Silent No More Awareness Campaign, Rachel's Vineyard, and Operation Outcry, among dozens of other post-abortion healing programs, assembled in Washington, D.C. to tell the truth about abortion through their personal stories of physical, emotional, and spiritual pain. Thousands more who have seen their friends, mothers, sisters, cousins, girlfriends, and classmates suffer from abortion marched in honor of the women who are crying and the children who are dying. And others, still, stood for the millions of tiny children they will never meet— in solemn remembrance of the past three generations that have been obliterated by one-third in the name of "choice." I stand in spirit with each and every one of them, praying evermore fervently today for an end to abortion, once and for all.

Nothing is hidden from God. Roe v. Wade may have deceived the American people, but it did not deceive Christ. For He tells us, "Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain" (Isaiah 40:4). We can rest assured that He will make all wrongs right, since even the greatest lie cannot stand before Truth Himself.

Vita Pro Omni!

*Pro-lifers absolutely support reproductive freedom. We are not, nor have we ever been, in the business of making any woman reproduce or have a child. But it is a biological fact that when a woman is pregnant, she has already reproduced and has a child. Our contention is simply that she shouldn't have that child killed.

**It should be noted that early-term abortions are just as deplorable as those that are done farther along in the pregnancy. By the same token, the abortion of a handicapped or afflicted child is an equal loss as that of a healthy child. Pro-lifers don't rank certain lives as more important than others.