284: They Lied About Roe Then. They Are Lying About Roe Now. And They Are Lying About Dobbs
27:58 Share

The media that supports abortion (which is a large portion of popular media), has always misrepresented what Roe versus Wade did. Roe versus Wade never gave women the authority to kill their children. Roe versus Wade never ‘freed women to do as they wish.’ Justice Blackmun’s words were explicit, and Brian quotes directly from Roe, “…the court has never recognized such a right.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself, in trying to explain Roe to radical feminists, reiterated that the decision never gave women the right to choose. “It was not woman-centered it was physician-centered.”

But that did not stop radical feminists from claiming that right anyway. It did not stop the media from gaslighting, (lying directly and outrageously about objective facts,) in order to confuse you and the general public.

The Dobbs decision of June 24, 2022 overturned Roe versus Wade and made very clear and concise what it would do. Roe had given all authority to determine which human lives should be killed in the course of abortion to doctors alone. Only the physician was given authority in the issue of abortion, not the woman.  The Dobbs decision said that authority over just life and death decisions is given by the Constitution to each and every state. 

Under the Constitution, each and every state is given very specific authority. One of the primary purposes of the state is to protect the lives of those within its jurisdiction. The Constitution refers to this as the states’ “compelling state interest to protect life.”

There was never a constitutional right to abortion. Roe had falsely taken the authority of state government and given it to abortionists alone to decide if a child should be killed.

In the Dobbs decision, the authority of each and every state was returned to that state.  It is now therefore, the responsibility of the state legislatures to determine within that jurisdiction, where and how to protect the lives of vulnerable children in the womb.

Unfortunately, many do not fully understand what that means in their state. Right now there is a compelling duty of pro-life citizens to be actively and assertively involved in civics - to make sure that their state will indeed perform its duty to protect innocent human lives in the womb. This can only be affected by those who hold elective office. This can only be done by lawmakers. 

The pro-life movement needs to understand the overriding importance of electing pro-life lawmakers in this election cycle. 

The lies about Roe, then and now, have distorted the abortion issue.  The United States Congress controlled by Nancy Pelosi and radical pro-abortion lobbyists, has already voted to strike down the laws of each and every state and to federalize abortion far beyond what Roe v. Wade did. They have voted to prohibit states from any kind of laws that would protect mothers and their children.

Fortunately, it appears the U.S. Senate will not pass this measure. But, in the election of 2022, if the Senate loses any more seats to the Democrats, that will no longer be the case in the legislative cycle of 2023! The elections of November 2022 are crucial!

It is crucially important to realize - contrary to the media analysis –  that each and every pro-life law that has been proposed or passed, first and foremost protects the mother, the life of that woman and her health. In so doing, it also protects the life of a child in her womb. Every pro-life law, whether it be informed consent, parental notice before an abortion, or laws against distribution of RU-486: the abortion chemical drug, is designed to protect that vulnerable woman from the procedure that will invade her body in order to attempt to kill that child. 

The abortion drug RU-486 is now being widely used but few understand that it operates by attacking the woman’s body.  Powerful artificial steroids in two different procedures are used to seriously alter a woman’s physiology and a very risky and in a blood inducing manner. The first dosage tells the woman’s body to not allow nature to operate as it does in transforming her physical body, preparing it for motherhood.  The drug stops her body with a shock of chemical and unnatural dynamic. Days later, a second drug: progesterone, gives instructions to her body to expel anything in her uterus.  This will happen without her control. She is not in charge.  The deadly chemical will kick in with a shock to her body. 

It is hoped that she at least will get to a bathroom.  Regardless, she will see the baby that is expelled. The drug can only be used after she had missed two periods - ten weeks.  She will likely be alone. Vast amounts of blood and hemorrhaging occur and  much of the blood is hers as well as the child’s. Women have died from this powerful artificial steroidal concoction. But the media does not discuss this. 

Pro-life laws are established first to protect mothers and secondly the obvious life at risk - the child.

In this new political environment where the laws of each state determine whether certain human beings will be protected, it is not unlike our nation’s history in dealing with slavery.

In the Dred Scott decision, Justice Taney asserted each and every states’ authority to enact laws of their jurisdiction. It also allowed slave states to enter free states, to enforce the slavery laws of that slave holding state.

Similarly, the Dobbs decision, by asserting the authority of each and every state, also authorizes the intermeddling of a pro-abortion state with pro-life states.

The states of California, Oregon and Washington fully intend to promote and encourage such intermeddling in pro-life states. California in particular has pledged vast sums of money to both promote and transport pregnant mothers to have their children killed within the jurisdiction of California. All expenses are paid, including missed pay and any other expense that the mother might see monetarily. This intermeddling of one state in the authority of another has grave implications for our nation and for the protection of innocent lives.

The right to life debate is far from over.