The heart of any nation is its life, its protection and its betterment. In America, we are guided with the words from our Pledge, “under God.” For too long, many Americans have not only condoned a most injurious blasphemy, but also defend and protect its venue.
Responding to recently passed and signed legislation barring legal abortions after the detection of a heartbeat, a temporary injunction was ordered; which from any logical interpretation of Constitutional Law, must be viewed as an intentional act of inhumanity, along with its being unconstitutional. In addition, this ruling also deepens America’s dismissal from her sense of decency, human kindness and all standards of right and wrong,
Have we not lost our way? Has life become too cumbersome and restrictive, too demanding? Will our material glitz and clutter only remain as evidence of our existence? What matters if not life, and if not life, what have we become?
Billed as “the most restrictive abortion law in the country,” this decision from Iowa’s Judge Michael Huppert delays the law’s final implementation for months! It’s push back came from the usual suspects: the ACLU of Iowa, Planned Parenthood and the Emma Goldman Clinic; all of which claimed that banning abortions based upon detecting a fetal heartbeat “is unconstitutional.”
Are we crazy? Ok, Roe v Wade was interpreted as law in 1973 and since then, estimates inform that well over 53 million abortions have been performed. I would suggest to those plaintiffs in Iowa’s “heart beat abortion” case that this grotesque total is not only a blatant violation of constitutional law but it itemizes the cost of our ease and indifference by illuminating our amoral nature when in support of such wretched personal choices.
More to the point, just what is unconstitutional with using a heartbeat as the ultimate decider of life or death? Is it not the starting point when administering aid in emergency situations? Also, how is it logical to protest the finality facing death row inmates while vehemently defending those seeking to abort?
Also too, consider the era when Roe v Wade somehow gained constitutional muster. Vietnam was finally being laid to rest after years of weekly casualty totals and often grisly nightly viewing. Could this drumbeat of war, be viewed as a possible numbing of senses prior to Roe v Wade? The public’s disconnect from both grim realities should, in retrospect, be considered.
Who remembers the Supreme Court’s McCollum v. Board of Education case of 1948 which found that religious instruction in schools was unconstitutional? How did this long ago decision not affect the public’s regard for the esteemed infallibility of those nine black robes?
Then another judicial faux pas came with the more recent Obamacare trespass. This decision somehow fathomed that American citizens must pay for a product that was neither wanted nor, in some cases, needed. That or be fined! These outcomes bolster the probability that even judiciaries may enter into an outlaw state when the appropriate oversight from Congress takes flight. Recognition of this lack may have provided additional impetus for going forward into the unconstitutional realm of its Roe v. Wade finding!
Consider our wayward direction from when America’s Founding was based on unimpeded Christian religious freedoms for all denominations and faiths. Embedded within all those beliefs was the sanctity of life. So, with the public’s complicity in full view since 1973, is there any wonder as to why today’s anti-Christian crusade continues to bellow?
Through recent times, we have extended far beyond our normal need for freedom. All freedom co-exists with responsibility and accountability. As such, abortion is an after-the-fact decision to what in most cases was not a responsible undertaking. Interestingly, its demand is compounded through this opposition against the teaching of abstinence, which only heightens the irresponsibility of it all.
Contrary to the anti-life dogma being echoed by our judiciary, the “fundamental right to have a safe and legal abortion” is a fallacy since only Congress legislates and enacts law, not nine over-the-top justices. Therefore, this “law of the land” refrain is mainly employed to instill compliance through ignorance which only begets further judicial banditry.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com