Praise God! A leaked opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, sends the clearest of signals that the Supreme Court of the United States will soon announce that Roe V. Wade has been overturned. Let that sink in for a moment. And a moment longer.
A shining example of bad constitutional law that resulted in untold suffering, heartbreaking loss of life and contributed to social moral decay will soon be rightfully and thankfully relegated to a place of ignominy in history. On page two of what will almost certainly be the majority opinion for the Court, Justice Alito writes, with respect to abortion:
“It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g. its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (c.g, its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law).”
That sentence encapsulates the approach taken in the original decision, namely, a decision without a substantive basis in history or law and a decision that set the stage for subsequent social engineering from the bench. Rights that are manufactured out of thin air make the government more powerful, don’t they?
Good riddance to bad law. Objectively bad and morally bad.
So, now what? Does this mean that abortion is illegal? No. This decision moves the nation closer to the original intent of Federalism. Prior to Roe, abortion was regulated by the states. That is to what we return. Roe was essentially a huge, open-ended injunction on all of the state statutes; states were prevented from applying and enforcing these laws that had been enacted by the various legislatures. These laws will now go back into effect.
Get ready for a great deal of emotional upheaval from both sides. The pro-life side needs to thoughtful and restrained through this period – more about this in a bit – and prepare for a flurry of legislative activity at the state level. The battle will continue on a different field and it will intensify. The economic system that has grown and matured around abortion will NOT just pack up and go home, so we need to be prepared. Even better, we should seize the initiative.
Texas, Oklahoma and Mississippi have a head start and a number of other states are considering legislative approaches similar to those that have been applied in these states. This momentum needs to build and the coming decision’s principal effect – returning the authority to the states – is a very good thing. The Federal behemoth is almost impossible to turn and it is surrounded by an Executive bureaucracy that has had a mind of its own for decades. State legislatures are much more accessible, practically-minded and responsive. The pro-life community needs to recognize and take advantage of the decision’s principal effect.
I have a suggestion for a common initiative, something that is likely to advance in the majority of states. This initiative may seem indirect, but we believe that its effects will be very significant, going beyond the immediate regulation of abortion and dealing with the demand side of the economic system that has grown around abortion, the side that absolutely has an influence on the supply side.
Laws that required the labeling of products researched, developed and/or produced with aborted fetal tissue (this includes aborted fetal cell lines) is the initiative for which we would like to advocate. Prominent display on product packaging will expand awareness well beyond what we’ve seen with COVID and it is certain to affect consumer behavior in material ways.
Think California Proposition 65. Grab a package of anything in your home – your medicine cabinet, pantry, workshop, garage, bathroom, linen closet, any room will do – and examine the labeling. I’ll bet a cookie that California Prop. 65 warning language is on there somewhere. Something like ‘this product contains materials or ingredients that are known to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. . .’ It’s on practically everything, so we don’t even pay attention to it anymore, but that lack of effectiveness is not the point. The point is that this was a STATE law that had national impact. California has over thirty million residents and it is the nation’s largest consumer market. Every company that sells stuff (that’s all of them) sells that stuff in California. Manufacturers made the only rational decision available to them and printed the language on every single box, blister pack, bottle, bag or tray of stuff they sell.
The pandemic was an awakening for many people. Millions of us learned of the commercial exploitation of killed unborn and many were horrified. There are many millions more that have no idea how pervasive this exploitation has become. Pro-choice elements were quick to develop talking points that minimized this horror but many of us, those that took the time to look beyond the news stories and talking points, know differently. Using the California Prop. 65 general recipe will make it absolutely clear to consumers exactly how far we’ve gone down this modern-day Trail of Tears. No longer will we wonder. We will know. We need one state, one major consumer market, to pass such a law and we will see industry respond in the same way they responded to California Prop. 65. Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Georgia come immediately to mind as opportunities. We need just one . . .
This approach is indirect, in that it does not render abortion illegal. Shouldn’t we focus our efforts on that? Maybe in the future, then again, maybe not. In my mind, the ideal outcome is to make legislation unnecessary, to foster and create a social climate and morality that is faithful to what God wrote on every single one of our hearts. We must remember that laws are instruments of force and history teaches us that forcing moral points of view through legislative or judicial mechanisms are almost always doomed to failure. The circumstance that directly precipitated these ramblings is evidence of this – Roe forced a moral position on society and did enormously more harm than good. Our Almighty Father created us with free will, enough so that we are free to turn our back to Him if we so choose. Let’s remember that as we move forward in the post-Roe environment. Stacy and I were talking about this last night and I mentioned that I had this very argument about forty years ago with a colleague whose position advocated throwing the legislative kitchen sink at the problem. He started to think differently when I observed that it’s not a real baptism if you hold someone’s head under the water until the bubbles stop. Colorful, but I think that’s correct.
I offer a closing thought in regard to our collective behavior in the future. As mentioned earlier, there will be a great deal of emotional upheaval associated with this decision. Sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric will be everywhere. As people of faith and goodwill, we must do all that we can to stay above the emotional fury, comport ourselves with grace and in ways consistent with the Christian ethic. This decision will start to correct a great wrong. It is up to us to nurture this redemptive process and show our brothers and sisters the way by proper example and Christian love.
For God and Country!
Thank you for an excellent analysis regarding the leaked version of the upcoming SCOTUS decision.
I am concerned, however, that the actual leaking of this document was done by those who hope to inflame the pro-choice radicals (as if they need any ‘inflaming’ already) into physical, nationwide violent protest in the weeks prior to the actual publication of the decision. SCOTUS is not known for their “making the hard decisions” and major protests might make the weak-kneed on the court modify the decision as an appeasement to the pro-choice (at the expense of the pro-life).
I pray that this not happen
I share your concerns. The opinion was leaked to serve some darker purpose. Already there is talk of ending the filibuster and the necessity of packing the Supreme Court from elements of the political class. There is so much at stake here. We must be vigilant.
The leak itself was, at best, an enormous breach of propriety and, at worst, stomp-down illegal. I can’t help but remember Chief Justice Roberts reversing himself on the Affordable Care Act decision, bending to the political winds. I would like to think that Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Gorsuch and Cavanaugh are solid on this.
Whereas God’s law says “Thou shall not kill,”
Whereas life begins at conception,
Whereas God’s law admits no exception,
Whereas abortion kills,
Therefore, abortion is immoral and should be illegal.
Thank you for supporting the aim of the Human Cell Product Labeling Act. For more information and a suggested wording see this article at Crisis Magazine:
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/support-the-human-cell-product-labeling-act
I certainly support the idea of advertising on packaging that it contains (or is!) products tested, designed, and/or developed using immorally obtained cell lines. The problem is the suggested phrasing linked to above – it could just as logically apply to morally obtained cell lines as immorally obtained ones, making the labeling pointless.
How do we rephrase the suggested label to make it clear that only cell lines or tissues derived from voluntary abortions or murder are the ones needing labeling? (Yes, I know that sounds kind of redundant to our ears, but not to those who don’t see abortion as murder.)
Laura, requiring disclosure of the use of aborted fetal cell lines and/or tissue would serve that purpose. This is what is important from the pro-life perspective, and there is no such thing as ethically sourced aborted fetal tissue for these purposes.
Use of the word ‘voluntary’ implies that ‘involuntary’ would be an ethical source. In theory, yes. In practice, there are no cell lines or inventory in tissue banks that have been sourced from ‘involuntary’ (spontaneous abortions, miscarriages or stillbirths). You can read about that in this post: https://cogforlife.org/2021/04/25/cell-lines-from-miscarriages-nonsense/. If anyone can provide anything other than opinion or anecdotal evidence on the existence of such a thing, I, for one, would be happy to hear of it.
Finally, I don’t see the clear and unambiguous disclosure of this information as negation of anyone’s opinions or beliefs. I am not advocating the use of the word ‘murder’ or any other word that has moral connotations. That a product ‘is’ or ‘is not’ is information that has value to many. To those that don’t care, they are not compelled to change their behavior or opinions in any way.
Laura,
Please see the Human Cell Product Labeling Act, which includes, “Further, any such product packaging shall contain an internet link to a webpage indicating at least the 1) origin of the human cells used to develop and/or test the product and 2) the method by which the cells were obtained and 3) any medical or scientific name of any used human cell based line(s). However, such information shall not include the name of any person or body from which the cells originated.”
Thus the Human Cell Product Labelling Act is going to expose both the moral and immoral products. Don’t you want to know both, so you can use the moral ones and avoid the immoral ones?
Again, please see https://www.crisismagazine.com/2022/support-the-human-cell-product-labeling-act
Ed
“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.” – Friar William of Occam
I offer this piece of wisdom in support of solving the problem in the most direct way possible. It can be argued that our desire is to know if a product is involved in any way with the exploitation of the killed unborn. There is already a body of law dealing with informed consent and the acquisition of adult tissues for research purposes; a comingling of aborted fetal and other tissue sources in disclosure legislation may serve to create confusion, thus not providing the desired clarity.
In an absolute sense, the larger the requirements of a piece of proposed legislation, the greater the resistance to its passage. That is something else to consider. I advocate for simplicity.
Funny thing about legislation – it seems to run away from Friar William’s sage advice.
OK but the Human Cell Product Labeling Act does not does mention abortion or “killed unborn.” That makes in simple. Further, is it more simple to just to ask where all human cell products came from and how they were obtained, or more simple to ask manufactures to separate human cell products into two categories, one from abortion (killed unborn) and the other not from abortion? Then will we not get into a complex debate involving the definition of abortion? And how will legislatures come down on products from embryonic stem cell lines? Are they going to agree that such products came from abortion or killed unborn? Or, will they exempt such embryonic stem cell lines from the labeling law? The language of the Human Cell Product Labeling Acts IS designed to get to what we want in the simplest way. You need to think more deeply about the process of passing the law. You will complicate it by asking for a moral or debateable judgements by legislators. Just ask for the product origins across the board. Everything treated the same. Besides, there is no harm to knowing what products came from human cells morally as well. Just ask the legislators to pass a bill that gives us all product origins, we can make the moral judgements after knowing product origins. I advocate simplicity as well. I believe COG tried to get product origins before via a very much more complicated federal proposal that stalled. Please re-consider the Human Cell Product Labeling Act as the simple solution.
Two problems:
1) “method” could be interpreted in a very generic way. We may be thinking “abortion” vs “clone-n-kill” vs “biopsy that leaves the donor alive at the end” etc. Instead we will probably get the most generic term possible for the method so you still can’t tell, or maybe some scientific term that is equally applied to techniques that leave the donor dead and those that intend to leave the donor alive.
2) This won’t be very useful in the store as you look at packaging to see what the warnings are. At best you’d have to have a smart phone to check out the website to get the information you need to avoid buying an abortion tainted (or embryonic stem cell research tainted) product.
Research will still be needed. I think this Human Cell Product Labelling Act, as currently phrased, would help you know what needs to be researched, but it would probably not provide the final answer.
Indeed if we can label products as cruelty free, from testing on animals, all the more reason to state that this product is free from testing on unborn human babies.
The first sentence above in my last post has a typo, an extra word, it should read:
OK but the Human Cell Product Labeling Act does not mention abortion or “killed unborn.”
I did not see an edit option.
We’re going to disagree on this one. The potential problems you present either exist today and are dealt with in the context of legislation and regulation, or they are not really problems. ‘Therapeutic abortion’ has a precise definition in medicine. ‘Fetus/fetal’ and ’embryo/embryonic’ likewise have very precise definitions in biology. The law and regulatory bodies deal with these definitions today. Words mean things, and these words have established meaning in the hard sciences.
I am not advocating for legislating morality. If you read my post carefully, you will see where the futility of legislating morality is mentioned. It has never worked. What is being advocated is the specific disclosure of the use of fetal and/or embryonic cell lines, strains or tissues in the discovery, development, testing and/or manufacture of products. Anywhere along the value chain. Let consumers vote with their wallets, and that will change corporate behavior. Corporations serve their own interests and, despite articulated ‘core values’ and the like, what they respond to quite directly is anything that will affect earnings per share. Market share is highly levered in that calculus.
Throwing a comprehensive net over all biologics of human origin will present consumers with a broad landscape, perhaps broader than you think. There are over 1,500 fetal cell lines and strains in the aggregated biologics catalogue. Including all biologics of human origin will serve to manufacture questions and confusion. I believe I have some authority to make that observation, having spent thousands of hours in the past year answering questions and addressing confusion on this and related topics.
People have directly and indirectly articulated the desire to know if consumer products and medications are associated with the products of abortion and that is a specific problem to solve. I’ve graded my share of examinations as a TA in graduate school and as an adjunct professor of Mathematics and I’ve seen some very creative approaches to problem-solving, often motivated by either panic or lack of study. In applied mathematics, if one seeks the discrete value of ‘X’ given a set of independent parameters that determine the value of X and the answer given is ‘the domain of Real Numbers, containing X’, we have a situation. Although the answer offered is correct in the most general sense (X, whatever it is, is contained in the domain of Real Numbers), it is akin to pointing at the library and asserting that the answer to all questions resides therein. Again, perhaps correct in the most general sense, but not very useful. Answers of this sort are inadequate.
This may very well be a discussion of two different things, and that’s fine. The Human Cell Product Labeling Act suggested by the good folks at Crisis seems to be answering a different, more general question. I propose to answer a more specific question, one that has been asked thousands and thousands of times by the community this organization serves.
A final analogy (at the risk of being annoying), simply because I love analogies so much . . . A Swiss Army knife is a very handy tool to keep in your pocket. I carry one frequently. But, you know, it’s not a very good knife at all. All of the other features just get in the way and the steel used does not take an edge very well. If you need to cut something, use a good knife.