The French writer Voltaire once noted, “When injustice becomes law, resistance become duty.”
Resistance to nearly a half-century of the injustice of abortion on demand may have reached its apex yesterday at the Supreme Court.
We begin this morning with Focus president Jim Daly’s reaction:
- The Beginning of the End of Abortion in America
Focus on the Family President Jim Daly writes:
The sun has set on the Supreme Court this December afternoon marking the end of a remarkable, historic and encouraging day for all of us who champion and support the sanctity of life.
It’s likely we won’t know for sure until later this spring, but a majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to Mississippi’s right to limit abortion to 15 weeks’ gestation.
In fact, after nearly 50 years of abortion on demand, we’re looking at the very real possibility that the High Court may well decide to get out of the abortion business entirely, leaving the issue up to the democratic process.
Several conservative justices strongly challenged the wrong-headed argument of the abortion industry that the court should follow “precedent” in this case, even if the justices think Roe was wrongly decided.
“If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong … why then doesn’t the history of this court’s practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is to return to the position of neutrality?” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
“Precedent” was a major theme and one that liberals and pro-abortion activists love to talk about – that is until they find a Supreme Court precedent they don’t like and want overturned.
Just because a case has been wrongly decided for many years is no reason to keep upholding bad law. After all, schools were segregated for 58 years until the court reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
One of today’s most understated but pointed questions came from Justice Clarence Thomas, has been adamant since dissenting in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion decision in 1992 reaffirming Roe, that the Constitution does not contain or protect a “right” to abortion.
Justice Thomas’ questioning this morning directly asked counsel defending Roe and Casey to tell him where they believed the “right” came from.
They provided no satisfactory answer – because there is none.
Keep in mind that if the court overturns Roe and Casey, that won’t by itself outlaw abortion. Instead, it will place the abortion issue into the hands of the people and their elected representatives in each state. We will still have hearts and minds to convince about the sanctity of life. But being freed from the shackles of Roe will give Christians and pro-life Americans the opportunity to make the case to protect preborn life in ways that we are unable to do so at the moment.
The justices will meet later this week in conference to cast their votes. Decisions will be assigned and the writing and waiting will begin.
Please pray for the justices as they consider this case and begin to write opinions.
In the midst of fierce fighting during World War II, as the Allies finally began to gain some traction, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill remarked:
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Please pray with me that the Dobbs case will be the beginning of the end for abortion in this country.
2.RELATED VIDEO (The Daily Citizen)
Pro-life and abortion supporters react to SCOTUS hearings
The Daily Citizen’s Michael McGonigle was at the Supreme Court yesterday and spoke to both pro-life and abortion supporters about the case, where life begins and what happens next.
Encouraging Signs that ‘Roe v. Wade’ is Vulnerable Emerge During Supreme Court Arguments in ‘Dobbs’
From The Daily Citizen:
Outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Wednesday, December 1, pro-life supporters far outnumbered pro-abortion protestors. Inside the building, the number of justices expressing deep concerns with various aspects of its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade and its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey far outnumbered justices who supported keeping those rulings intact.
No matter the ultimate outcome, today’s oral arguments were historic.
Mississippi’s Solicitor General, Scott Stewart, spoke first, followed by attorney Julie Rikelman on behalf of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the abortion seller challenging Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. Those two were followed by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who also argued that the Mississippi law was unconstitutional.
Not only did Stewart have to endure hostile questioning from the court’s three pro-abortion liberals – Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan – but also long-winded speeches apparently designed more to sway the conservative side of the bench rather than elicit answers from Stewart. Sotomayor and Breyer, in particular, took up large blocks of the questioning in order to indirectly lecture their fellow justices about the importance of abortion and the need to keep Roe and Casey undisturbed.
But it soon became clear that none of the six conservatives were going to be rubber-stamping the court’s abortion precedents that have allowed the killing of more than 63 million babies since 1973.
Justice Sotomayor Loses Cool and Gets Political on Abortion
From the Wall Street Journal:
One judgment we can safely make is that Justice Sonia Sotomayor is mad as hell about it, and she was willing to violate the Court’s normal standards of decorum to make her point. From the start she ripped into the lawyer for Mississippi, but more notable were her words that were intended as a message to her fellow Justices if they overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey .
“The newest ban that Mississippi has put in place, the six-week ban, the Senate sponsor said we’re doing it because we have new Justices on the Supreme Court,” the Justice said, getting personal about the newest members of the Court, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? . . . I don’t see how it is possible.”
Survive the stench? Just political acts?
It’s no surprise that Justice Sotomayor feels strongly about abortion rights. But with those words she wasn’t addressing the legal questions at issue. She was asserting that if the Court revisits its abortion precedents its motivation would be political. She is throwing the legitimacy of her own institution into question.
This is nasty stuff, and she must know it will have the effect of fanning hostility to the Court in the broader public. Perhaps that was part of her point. Justices who passionately disagree with opinions often read their dissents from the bench, but they don’t call into question the motivations of their colleagues.
3. The New York Times Carefully Documents Where Pro-Abortion Movement Went Wrong
From The Daily Citizen:
The New York Times has been the abortion movement’s most powerful and faithful megaphone over the decades. But on the very day the Supreme Court took up oral arguments in a major case that could unravel Roe, The Gray Lady published a lengthy requiem of the pro-abortion movement itself.
Its appearance is a dramatic mood indicator of the pro-abortion movement, writ large. That mood is decidedly dark. Written by Amy Littlefield, whom the Times refers to as “the abortion access correspondent” for the historically liberal magazine The Nation, this detailed and lengthy piece could be seen as the first draft of the “What went wrong with abortion?” story in the United States.
The Times ruefully admits, “The Supreme Court, with its three Trump-appointed justices, appears willing to decimate, if not overturn, Roe. And the abortion-rights movement and its supporters in the Democratic Party have failed to stop this from happening.” Before SCOTUS has even rendered a verdict in the Mississippi case, Littlefield recognizes that the so-called “pro-choice” movement is now “being forced to reckon with its mistakes.”
And those mistakes are admittedly profound.
- Understanding the abortion industry’s greatest lie
From Fox News:
The greatest lie women have ever been told is that they need abortion in order to achieve their dreams, to have the career they want, to be the movie star they worked so hard to become, to keep their partner. I told this very lie to countless women in order to convince them to pay us at Planned Parenthood to get rid of that growing life inside of them. It is also the same lie that the abortion industry has built their case on in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Women, don’t believe this lie. At its very core, this lie demands you attain justice and equality at the expense of a human being who shares your DNA, who will have parts of your personality and physical qualities, and whose very existence is a miracle.
Women have achieved immense progress in the workforce, education, and in positions in government over the past 40 years. There are many more women as members of Congress, in state legislatures, as governors, presidents of universities, and Fortune 500 CEOs and Board Members than in the past 30 to 40 years, according to the Pew Research Center. While abortion has been legal and available this entire time, the number of abortions have been dropping steadily since the 1980s — the same time women were making their rise in the workforce. Women have also earned more bachelor degrees since men since the 1980s and American colleges and universities are currently enrolling six women for every four men.
- GOP Lawmakers Demand Google Stop Censoring Pro-Life Ads
From The Daily Signal:
Republican lawmakers are again demanding that Google cease censoring abortion pill reversal ads from the pro-life organization Live Action.
“We are deeply disappointed that you have not reversed Google’s unjust decision to censor life-saving information on abortion pill reversal,” wrote Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, and Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana in a letter first obtained by The Daily Signal.
“We had hoped to receive assurances of Google’s commitment to uphold the fundamental principle of freedom of speech and follow the science,” the Republicans wrote. “Unfortunately, Google’s response only increases our alarm.”
Daines personally handed the letter to Google Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai Tuesday evening in the United States Capitol, a spokesman for Banks told The Daily Signal.
- Gov DeSantis Calls Out Legacy Media for Calling Concerned Parents ‘Domestic Terrorists’ While Protecting Actual Domestic Terrorists
From The Daily Citizen:
Yesterday Florida governor Ron DeSantis held a major press conference in support of his state’s law enforcement professionals. Discussing the Sunshine State’s budget priorities, Gov. DeSantis explained that contrary to many municipalities and states across the nation, Florida would not be defunding state law enforcement. Rather, Florida is boosting its budget in substantial ways that will help these dedicated professionals’ families and allow the state to recruit and train more law enforcement officers. DeSantis also mentioned other benefits that would help recruit law enforcement professionals from other states who have become discouraged by their local governments’ lack of support for the important and dangerous work they do every day.
Mark Brown, Chief of the Florida Highway Patrol, noted the importance of this, “It sends a clear message to our families, our spouses, our kids, our parents. It shows that Florida’s leadership truly cares and appreciates what we do out there on the road.”
During his press conference, Gov. DeSantis made an interesting observation of interest to readers of The Daily Citizen. Noting how too many leading media companies tend to spin false anti-police narratives in their news broadcasts, DeSantis referenced the recent tragedy in Waukesha Wisconsin that killed six and how media seem eager to protect the identity of the perpetrator of such a horrific crime. He explained,
“Corporate press are more apt to characterize a parent who goes to a school board meeting to protest bad policies as a domestic terrorist than somebody who intentionally rams an SUV into a crowd of innocent people.”
- Christian Ministry Appeals SPLC Case to Supreme Court
From Fox News:
The Christian ministry D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM) has asked the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark defamation ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), appealing its case against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which has branded DJKM a “hate group.”
“New York Times v. Sullivan, which is at the heart of our defamation suit against the SPLC, may have once sought to advance noble purposes, but the practical effect has been devastating to equal treatment under the law,” DJKM President Frank Wright told Fox News on Wednesday. “Today Times v. Sullivan is little more than a vehicle to enable reputational terrorism while avoiding the legal consequences of defamation law faced by every other American citizen.”
Critics say the SPLC brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations “hate groups,” placing them on a list with truly hateful organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. The SPLC has branded DJKM an “anti-LGBT hate group” due to its Bible-based statements on homosexuality, and Amazon uses the SPLC “hate group” list to determine eligibility for its Amazon Smile charity program. In 2017, DJKM sued the SPLC and Amazon for defamation and discrimination.
- California Court To Decide On Law Requiring Women On Corporate Boards
From The Daily Wire:
A California court is set to begin hearing arguments Wednesday on a California law that mandated that corporations put women on their executive boards.
The lawsuit, brought by Judicial Watch, will be heard in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit claims that the law violates the equal protection clause of the California state constitution by mandating a gender quota and that using taxpayer funds to enforce the law is illegal. The suit comes nearly three years after the law was initially signed, The Associated Press reported.
“They are creating a classification that either prefers or discriminates against one class or in preference of another,” Judicial Watch attorney Robert Patrick Sticht said, adding that California did not have a compelling interest in imposing the mandate.
Another conservative legal group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, is levying another challenge in federal court, arguing that the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Their lawsuit was originally dismissed in federal court, but was revived by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the AP reported.
The law, passed and signed by Governor Jerry Brown in 2018, required that publicly traded companies whose headquarters are located in California have at least one member of their board of directors who identifies as a woman by 2019. By January of this year, companies with boards comprised of five members must have two women, and boards with six or more members must have three. Companies that do not report the gender composition of their boards face fines of $100,000. Companies that do not comply with the gender composition mandates face fines of $100,000 for a first offense and $300,000 for subsequent offenses.
- Hit Series ‘The Chosen’ Comes to Theaters for Christmas Special
From The Daily Citizen:
The hit TV series The Chosen is in the running for one of the most successful Christian entertainment programs of all time.
Now, starting December 1, the show has come to the big screen with an all-new Christmas special: “Christmas with The Chosen: The Messengers.”
The series, created and directed by filmmaker Dallas Jenkins, tells the story of Jesus of Nazareth, told through the eyes of those who knew him. The series first premiered in 2017 and has now released two seasons, eight episodes apiece.
Since its release, the series has garnered over 200 million episode views.
Something that makes The Chosen particularly remarkable is the loyalty of its fan base. Viewers have contributed $40 million to produce the series, which is “enough to pay for three out of a planned seven seasons.”
“The series holds the record for the largest crowd-funded media venture in entertainment history.”
According to Fathom Events, when the Christmas special was first announced, it broke Fathom Events’ record by selling $1.5 million in ticket sales in just the first 12 hours.
Now, according to The Wall Street Journal, “Ticket sales are approaching $6 million so far, putting [the special] on track to be Fathom’s bestseller ever.”
10. Cheering for Sports Trains Us to Glorify God
From the Gospel Coalition:
The famous line from the Westminster Shorter Catechism does a pretty good job of capturing life’s purpose: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.” But what does it mean to glorify God? And what is glory? Glory is a hard word to define. You can’t point to it and say that’s “glory.” Perhaps it’s helpful to start with those who seek it: everyone.
We are all, by nature, glory-seekers. We want attention. We want credit for good things we do and we don’t want to miss out on any good things coming our way. But the Bible says we are supposed to give God the glory, the credit, the attention, and not seek it for ourselves.
We value sports because of the glory we experience when our team wins. Why did I experience such joy when the Cubs won the World Series? It has to do with glory. You share in the glory of that victory as a fan of the team. You haven’t done anything to assist in that victory. You have simply “opted in” emotionally and said, “That’s my team.” You have declared your allegiance.
Maybe you buy a hat or a jersey. You might follow the team’s off-season moves, learn the names of the coaches and players, and even read stories about their personal lives. You feel like you’re part of the team, to the point that you talk about it in the first person: “We need bullpen help” or “We have to get our offense going.”
When the players win, some of them tangibly benefit: they can receive a bigger contract or endorsements. You as a fan don’t enjoy any tangible benefits except you join in on the glory. You give them your glory, and then you get to enjoy the victory and enjoy their glory.
At their best, sports are a stimulating hobby. And with the right perspective, they can be a symbol of something bigger. For those of us who follow Jesus, they give us a foretaste of what will be the greatest celebration in history. It will make the 2016 celebration look like a 5-year-old’s neighborhood birthday party. And they’re a reminder that finding joy in reveling in God’s glory is the greatest gift of all.