The American Spectator : Does Roe Still Matter?

Text Size

Does Roe Still Matter?

By Daniel Allott on 1.25.12 @ 6:08AM

Has the Supreme Court’s most notorious decision become obsolete?

Earlier this week, abortion and pro-life advocates observed the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which, along with its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, recognized abortion to be a constitutionally protected right while giving states some leeway in restricting its availability.

Roe dominates America’s abortion debate. If you had asked any of the scores of thousands of pro-lifers who poured into Washington, D.C., on Monday for the annual March for Life to name their most urgent priority, most would have said overturning Roe.

Abortion advocates, meanwhile, talk about Roe as if it were the only thing standing between women and a new era of back alley abortions. As NARAL Pro-Choice America states on its website, “We believe that women should have the option to choose abortion. Today they can, thanks to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.”

But Roe may matter less than many people realize — or perhaps matter for different reasons that commonly thought. Many people mistakenly believe that legal abortion hinges on Roe — that without Roe abortion would be illegal everywhere in America. But that’s not true. If Roe goes, abortion law would revert to the states to decide.

Others mistakenly believe that the number of abortions would drop precipitously if Roe goes. That likely would not happen. Consider how abortion is treated in two states: South Dakota and California.

Relatively few abortions take place in South Dakota because South Dakotans are generally pro-life and elect pro-life lawmakers who have passed a number of restrictions on abortion. They include parental notification laws, bans on public funding of abortion and a requirement that women seeking abortion be given pro-life counseling.

In 2011, South Dakota passed the nation’s longest abortion waiting period law, three days. That means women seeking surgical abortions in that state must wait three days between their initial visit to an abortion facility and the abortion.

This is an important restriction because there are only two abortion facilities in South Dakota, and less than a quarter of South Dakota women live in counties with an abortion facility, according to the Guttmacher Institute. So for many women, obtaining an abortion means making two lengthy trips to the abortion center.

Given the legal environment in South Dakota, it’s not surprising that only six percent of South Dakota women who became pregnant in 2008 aborted — three times lower than the national abortion rate of 19%. That’s just 850 abortions in 2008, representing less than 0.1% of abortions nationally.

But the number of abortions performed in South Dakota likely wouldn’t change much if Roe were overturned. In 2006, South Dakota passed a “trigger law” that would automatically ban most abortions if Roe is overturned. But, given that twice in the past few years South Dakota voters have voted down ballot measures to ban abortion outright, the trigger law would likely be repealed if Roe goes.

This means that post-Roe South Dakota would probably look much like it does today. Abortion would be restricted and relatively few women would obtain them. But a blanket abortion ban would be unlikely.

The same could happen in the twenty or so other states that have trigger laws or pre-Roe abortion bans that remain on the books. Many of these laws would be repealed or altered after Roe’s demise to reflect voters’ opposition to total bans and legislators’ unwillingness to defy public opinion.

Gerald Rosenberg, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies the effect of Roe on abortion rates, said recently, “My guess is that no more than a dozen states could sustain a total abortion ban, and these are principally states where virtually no legal abortions are performed today.”

Now consider California, where there are no major restrictions to abortion and only 1% of women live in counties without an abortion facility.

Abortion is available virtually on demand in California, and, in 2008, nearly one quarter of the 900,000 California women who got pregnant aborted. That’s 214,109 abortions, or nearly one-fifth of all abortions nationally.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Daniel Allott is a writer in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brother John| 1.25.12 @ 6:21AM

Well, abortion as an issue really isn't, since the decision did not require anyone to do anything, nor did it prohibit anyone from doing anything. Oddly enough, it did not result in a loss of freedom in the most immediate.

The decision is important, though, because it was a drastic, unilateral thing on a sensitive, personal question by a tyrannical government that seized control from the people and claimed it for itself.

I have always thought that if we conservatives who wish to see abortions reduced insist on trying to do so at the federal level, then we seek the impossible and, I think, the unconstitutional. The best and most realistic course is to see that decision overturned on the basis of freedom and constitutionality, and then have the questions decided by the people at the state level.

This is one of the chief benefits to federalism, in that the persuader must reach small groups of people at a time instead of everyone all at once.

Jack in Wi.| 1.25.12 @ 7:29AM

Abortion, like all violent crime, is a responsibility of the states. Roe vs Wade was the worst attack on constitutional government since the countries founding. It overthrew the democratically enacted laws regulating abortion in all the 50 states. This decision made one of the most horrendous crimes a cilil right. Now babies in the womb can't be protected by the state governments.

The Constituion provides for 2 solutions, other then an Amendment, for such over reach. One is impeachment of the judges who did this. Which should have been done immmediatly. The other is using Article 3 section 2 of the Constitution to restrict the juridiction of the Federal Courts on the matter and return it to the states.

That is the solution put forth by the late, great Jesse Helms in the early 80's. It the also solution put forth by the Great Ron Paul. It is time for the movement to get behind this solution which could have been accomplised several times in the last 30 years. It would over turn Wade by simple congressional majority, and put it back with states. Then the argument can be put forth on what the regulations for abortion should be by using democratic methods, not tyranical fiat by the Surpreme Court.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:12PM

You could say that the JIM CROW laws were also the right of states. How far do you want to push state rights? A women could easy drive across one state to the one who allows abortion. State laws in such case have no affect.

Rich D| 1.25.12 @ 9:49PM

They restricted rights of people. So does RvW. Make them drive.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:33PM

Freedom is beer, pickup trucks, and my girl all nekkid in the back-- you pointy headed Republicans want to take away my Rights as an American by denyin my girl the Right to have an abortion!

Brubaker| 1.25.12 @ 7:01PM

Your mother should have had one.

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 8:01PM

Then you wouldn't be able to diss me, Brubaker! If it's all God's plan, then we were both sent to AS for a reason, no?

Dr. X| 1.25.12 @ 9:07PM

Your analysis is correct, but it is irrelevant. Logical arguments -- moral, ethical, biological, and constitutional -- unquestionably undermine Roe.

However, none of this matters. It is impossible to convince supporters of abortion otherwise. Roe was simply an imposition backed by the pure force of the U.S. government. Try to exercise your First Amendment rights outside an abortion clinic sometime and you'll see just how heavy-handed the U.S. Marshals will get in defense of the baby-hackers.

Like slavery, this question can only be reconciled through civil war. Either Negroes were subhuman savages or they were entitled to citizenship and full rights. There was no middle ground. That question was ultimately solved by Sherman burning Atlanta to the ground, not by debates, politics, or the 19th century equivalent of the Internet blog.

Since the pro-life movement is either unable or unwilling to do what is necessary to resolve the question -- as the North did in the 1860s -- the ultimate consequence is that the pro-life movement does accept, and has accepted, "abortion on demand, without apology," as an essential part of the fabric of American society. Everything they say and write against Roe or against abortion is purely hot air, vapid rhetoric, and hypocrisy. This essential fact will not change. Roe will not be overturned, but even if it is, abortion is here to stay, as it has no credible or effective opposition.

Mender| 1.25.12 @ 9:22PM

Biological I can't agree with. I accept that time limits should be pushed down and that allowing abortion too liberally makes society treat babies without respect, but a newly-conceived embryo is darn well indistinguishable from a mouse's. It's not a human being as we understand it yet. I think most people would agree with me on this.

Dr. X| 1.25.12 @ 9:49PM

Well, then, I suggest you do a DNA analysis on an mouse's "newly conceived" embryo and then a similar analysis on a human embryo. The science is rather conclusive on this matter. Besides, even if we were, for purposes of mere academic argument, to concede your point, the fact is that we're almost never talking about "newly conceived" embryos. A woman typically does not confirm her pregnancy until around 6-7 weeks' gestation at minimum, and frequently far beyond that. Not to mention that the debate has advanced to the "partial birth" abortion stage where the baby-hackers even uphold the right to kill a partially-delivered human. So I think your "early gestation is OK" thesis fails.

As I wrote above, this is not going to be resolved by anything short of running every abortionist out of town with a lynch mob and then fighting the government, which will come in to defend them. I don't see that happening, so it's all a moot point.

Sit back, have a beer, and enjoy the life you have -- the life that you were lucky enough to not have terminated in its infancy -- in the good ol' "United States of Baby-Hackers." Because that's what we are and it ain't gonna change.

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 10:22AM

Mender, Dr. X has it exactly right.

Why are pro-abortion people so anti-science?

A "newly conceived embryo," if the parents were a man and a woman, looks EXACTLY the way ALL human beings look at that stage. You looked exactly like that, Mender, and aren't you human?

Or were you always fully grown, like Athena?

Science long ago settled the question of when a new human life begins. I have quoted before, and will now quote again, what "Human Development: Clinically Oriented Embryology," a textbook written for medical students (not seminary students) says on its very first page:

"Human development is a continuous process that begins when an ovum from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male...A zygote is the beginning of a new human being."

With the science of genetics available to us, it is absurd to rely on appearances ("indistinguishable from a mouse's") to show us the truth. DNA, Mender--DNA. From that moment of conception, it guides the developoment of that new human being. And it cannot be anything BUT human.

Once egg and sperm join, all that is needed is TIME and NUTRITION for that brand new human being to become an infant, a toddler, an adolescent, and an adult. He or she is the same human being through all of those perfectly natural stages of development. Just like you, just like me.

Mimi| 1.25.12 @ 3:26PM

Brother John....To deny LIFE to anyone is to deny
FREEDOM sir ! To deny LIFE is not constitutional.
When, we finally ALL REALIZE the commen sense view that LIFE does begin at CONCEPTION
This present nightmare will end and the UNBORN among us will have full Constitutional CIVIL RIGHTS. God help us in our ignorance!!

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:30PM

But, Tim, if abortion were nixed, the next time I get a broad pregnant in my puckup after a few beers, I;ll have to marry her and work at her Dad's business. You are tryin to take the fun out of life-- as Al Bundy sez:
Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Nudity.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:42PM

Actually abortion is in of itself unconstitutional. We are given the unalienable right to life by our creator (that means God for those in Rio Linda). Simple yes but thats the way the Constitution was meant to be the only ones who see it as complicated do so to circumvent it.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 7:18AM

"In 2005, 2007, 2009, and again in 2011, Dr.Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would have life defined as beginning at conception at the Federal level."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Florida.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:14PM

I commend Ron Paul for this, but what does Federal level mean? Does it mean a state can say the opposite and a person still have abortions?

Boar Hunter| 1.25.12 @ 1:28PM

Ron Paul is a nut.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 8:52PM

The Chairman Of The Bores Eats Bibi's Nuts.

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:58PM

That typical of an idiotic comment. Want to debate on the Catholic Church's abuse of children?????????????????

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:55PM

Clit, why are you in Florida when Ronnie is in Navada or possibly Maine [and has purposely skipped Florida since he has no support there]? Did you not get his email as to which state to report to???????

Appleby| 1.25.12 @ 7:20AM

Abortion is an individual decision, and can really only be fought one to one, on the individual level. The only way to stop the madness is to make sure that women think about what they are actually doing, and that they understand and can access real alternatives -- the first of which is undeniably the knowledge that someone truly cares for them as individuals and wants to help. Like "poverty", these are problems that are attached to people, individual people, and the only solution is an individual solution.

We are all in this together, and the only real solution to the worst problems of humanity is the individual solution: seeing each person as a person, and not a problem to be solved.

c.j. acworth| 1.25.12 @ 7:35AM

In line with your last thought, Appleby, the church I attend helps to support a local pro-life counseling organization, which helps women who are in great anguish over the decision to abort or not. They provide counseling, advice about adoption, etc. Those of us who claim to be pro-life have an obligation to provide more than just a Scarlet Letter to women who are often in real pain.

JP| 1.25.12 @ 8:41AM

Or perhaps somehow change the climate of hooking-up. But, as we all know that is judgemental. And women have every right to fully explore and express thier sexuality. This is especially true of teenage women. No parents, church, or faternal organization has the right to interfere with this oh so important right.

fmm| 1.25.12 @ 11:19AM

JP this is the type of immoral non-thinking which makes the problem so pervasive. No one has a right to any experimention when the outcome of such is the formation of a human life which may be snuffed out on a whim. Your approach is only OK when the individual doing the experimentation is the only one involved in possible outcomes. If you don't like the judmental aspect of these statements, tough, because judgement is the only action which leads to moral decisions.

StephenF| 1.25.12 @ 11:27AM

I think JP was being sarcastic. I believe he was actually poking fun at that (il)logic.

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 11:56AM

An alternative to sexual intercourse is sexual outercourse. Which is fine. Teens long have been engaging in the latter, and long before Roe v. Wade. I'm for self-control, not government control. When in doubt, masturbation isn't the worst thing in the world.

Dick Nome| 1.25.12 @ 1:12PM

Joycelyn Elders, is that you??

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 3:53PM

Oh, yes. It's me.

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 1:40PM

Actually the" hooking up" culture has very little to do with abortions. From reading historical exerpts there was plenty of "hooking up" going on in the past. They just called it different things and when a woman got pregnant she got married. Also I believe that most people use the phrase "hooking up" as a description for anything from going on a walk with someone all the way to intercourse and everything in between. If you want to change this culture you just need to make sure your kids are married by age 15. That will solve it. Otherwise with the trend of people waiting until later in life to get married you will always have something of this sort going on.

I read somewhere that something close to 80% of abortions are actually for women in a committed relationship. Im sure that includes married as well as people who have been living together for some time. It shocked me when I read that statistic and I believe it was put out by a reliable source. Unfortunately I dont remember where I read this.

I agree with Applbe. Its an individual solution to an individual problem. No one seems to be able to agree on when a person is a person. In my mind its something we as a nation will never agree upon. Perhaps we should leave it up to the individual to decide. God of course will be the final judge, so perhaps we should leave it up to him.

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 2:19PM

I found the article. It was posted in Slate Magazine with the title of Mother Majority. The statistic that surprised me was that in 2007 ,61% of all abortions are done by women that already have at least one child. The % of abortions that are given to minors is 7%. Much lower than I had ever expected. So most of the abortions are going to women who are older and already have children. This surprized me very much.

TrueBlue | 1.26.12 @ 1:06PM

It's generally attached to those with a lower income, or those who already have the number of children they "planned" to have. As unemployment goes up so too do abortion rates. They were steadily declining until 2006 when they started to go back up.

In the end though it comes down to a lack of self control and a resistance to personal responsibility. They know what causes pregnancy, if you don't want it to happen, don't engage in the act, or only do so during times where conception is very unlikely (such as the week after the woman's cycle concludes).

Any time you engage in sex, whether you use protection, drugs, etc. you are, or should be, accepting that pregnancy may result. If pregnancy and a child are not something you want to have to deal with DON'T ENGAGE IN THE ACT.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:48PM

The same could be said of drugs. Oh wait thats right we lock people up for drugs which is what I would like to see be done with abortion. You want to end it? Put the doctors in jail along with the woman who get them. The killing of innocent life is wrong period. And for those who want to attack me I have two daughters and I wouldnt allow them to have abortions. You may call it controlling or whatever but their mother and I didnt abort them I'll be damned if I'd let them abort.

Frank Drackman| 1.25.12 @ 7:36AM

Its not a coincidence that Abortion rates are lowest where the population is whitest...
In a way its Richard Nixon's greatest legacy, besides the EPA I mean.

Frank

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 10:46AM

First, I just wanna ask: Why are there any MEN at these Pro Abortion Rallies? Is it because they wanna get La*d? I believe it.

I remember, a long time ago (Imagine wavy lines going across the screen right now) sitting through an unbelievably tedious Feminist load of Sh*t, one time, with Susan. (Oh, Susan. You can't even imagine.) It was called: The Woman's Room - and I SUFFERED through it, because I wanted to show her how Open Minded I was, so that she would show me how Open her Blouse could be, and let me go to town.

It was on a Monday, back when Monday Night Football was #1. It was a HUGE GAME, that night, and I would change the channel, whenever she left the room, even if it was just for a second. She was so "GRATEFUL" to me, for being so sensitive (Not too sensitive) and so Open Minded, yadda, yadda, yadda, I was soon standing at the Bow of the Titanic, proclaiming to be The King Of The World.

Is Roe vs. Wade still important?

As a Political issue? I'd say no. If I was running, and the question came up as to which side I was on? I would say: LIFE. I'm on the side of life. I would add that if you want a Lifetime of regret, and an Eternity in Hell, than I can't stop you. I will just ask you to THINK about what you are about to do.

Is it still Important as an opportunity for young men to Bullsh*t their way to the Intimate Pleasures, that only the Soft Touch of a Young Girl's Silky Skin can produce?

Hell yeah.

Henry Calvin| 1.25.12 @ 11:17AM

You, sir, are a fool.

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 4:21PM

You sir, are a Queer.

Get over yourself.

Teaghan| 1.25.12 @ 7:09PM

Tim, you are hot today!

Henry Calvin| 1.26.12 @ 11:00AM

Ha, that's the best you can do? Add pathetic to the fool tag!! Pathetic fool!

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 8:03PM

"that only the Soft Touch of a Young Girl's Silky Skin can produce?"

Young Girl? you mean jailbait?

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:41AM

Men attend pro-life rallies for some of the same reasons that women do. For example, they know that it is the responsibility of all adults to speak out for the rights of the young and defenseless.

Many men attend the rallies because their children have been aborted based only on the mother's wishes. Many men want to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their children (even those who weren't planned). Sometimes they offer to marry the mothers; in other cases, they offer to take the "unwanted" child off her hands.

Ever since Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, fathers have tried to have their rights realized in light of the 9th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, which provide for the rights to privacy, due process, and equal protection under the law.

This issue can take surprising twists and turns. For example, in March 1988, in New York, a man named David Ostreicher charged that his wife threatened to abort his baby if he didn't destroy their pre-nuptial contract.

Every child deserves a chance. If the mother is unwilling or unable to raise the child, she should be encouraged to give birth and let the father (or someone else) take over from that point. Every pro-life ministry or organization is eager to help all concerned.

Frank Drackman | 1.25.12 @ 8:29AM

Strange...
in the bad Pre/Roe days of 1972 there were 586,760 legal abortions.
In 1973 there were 615,831.
I mean, I thought Abortion was Ill-Legal(at Bushwood) before "Roe"...
And whats creepy is I remember my Dad taking my Mom to the "Hospital" in 1972 for some procedure she was really vague about, or maybe it was just I was 10, and everything was confusing...
But just some Stats, cause that's the way I roll..

1973 615,000 Abortions, r.5 in White Peoples
1983 1,268,987 A-words, g.6 in White Peoples
1990 1,429,000 You know whats, h.1 """""""

so just in 3 years thats 987,265 less you-know-whos, and with this being the 39th Aniversary of Roe, do the math, carry the 3, square root of Pi...

Roughly 12,961,147 less Peoples of a Demographic Group that votes �.9999999 Democrat...
and with roughly 6,480,073.5(can't forget the Trannys) XX's with an average fertility rate of 2.1/yr/
Lets just say, thats ALOT of lottery tickets...

Frank

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 8:52AM

Mzz. Sanger would be very happy reading that.

Frank Drackman | 1.25.12 @ 9:27AM

C'mon...
If a Zombie Ted Bundy, no, wait, lets make it someone really Sick , Preverted, and Disgusting, like Ted Kennedy,
So lets say, Theoretically, Zombie Ted Kennedy rises from the Dead, somehow manages to get his 300lb Corpse to wherever you live, and impregnates your Daughter.
You wouldn't let her abort THAT abortion???

and if you would, its just a Slippery Slope until you'd be cool letting her abort Julio the Lawnboy's Love Nino...

Frank

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:07PM

I wonder if abortion was legal in Hawaii in 1972 if Barack Obama (or whatever his name truly was at the time) would have ever been born.

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 12:41PM

Would not matter, the Obamas were in Kenya.

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 12:45PM

I was never father to a slut such as your hypothetical scenario would require.

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 11:58AM

Update: The number of abortions in the U.S. since 1990 has declined to around 1.2 million annually.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:08PM

Wow, killing 1.2 million souls annually. Makes war seem rather trivial if you think of it.

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 3:57PM

No, but numbers do matter. They reflect reality. And by selectively ignoring data of the last two decades, Drackman is destorting the context of the issue. Fact: There is a lot less abortion than before, especially given population size is a good deal larger as well.

America is a country bitterly divided on this issue. And so long as there is nothing resembling consensus, the debate remains open. "Murdering children" is emotionally-charged rhetoric that only inflames; it does nothing to enlighten.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:52PM

Its the truth Seek.

JP| 1.25.12 @ 8:35AM

Roe doesn't really matter unless you are one of the unborn. In California, one in four children are aborted. But hey, in California there is still a 75% chance of survival.

But, there is another more simple method to extrapolate future trends of this oh so important medical procedure (much safer than delivering a baby!). With each abortion successfully performed there is an equal drop in the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). But, statistically speaking women outnumber men by a factor of 1.1 to 1. Therefore, abortions reduce the number of future fertile women (as they reduce the total number of future women). Even with a TFR below replacement levels (2.1 births per female), this reduction is significant, as with each aborted female child there is a corresponding reducion of her future children by a factor of 1.7 to 2.0. In effect, one abortion leads to a reduction of not one child by as many as 2 or 3.

We can see this all in the 2010 Census. Our population's rate of growth is at its slowest rate since 1929. Non-Hispanic birthrates average only 1.7 children per female (asian and blacks inclusive). Hispanic birthrates are at 3.6 children per female, and in 2010 Hispanics accounted for almost 50% of all births in the US. But before Hispanics jump for joy, it should be noted that most of these births went to first generation immigrants (both legal and illegal). In otherwords, a second or third generation Hispanic women's birth rate is about the same as her host nation (the USA).

But abortion is only one facet of our anemic birthrates. Contraception prevents more future children by far than does abortion. Artificial contraception is also subsidized by Uncle Sam. And if Obama has his way, it will be coming to a Church near you!

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 4:01PM

"Anemic" birthrates? How many people are enough? Our population is now about 310 million, and almost all growth has been driven by first- second or third generation Third World immigrants. Back in 1960, before the alleged "birth dearth," it was less than 180 million.

As for Hispanic births -- as far as I'm concerned, the fewer, the better.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:56PM

What I'd like to see is the opportunity to kill people with your thought process Seek. Protect the innocent and punish those who think some people shouldnt be born. At least people get a chance not to be an asshole like yourself before we off em.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:57PM

Just to be clear I'm not advocating this just illustrating absurdity by being absurd.

Mac Jehoff| 1.25.12 @ 8:50AM

Imago dei.

C Smith| 1.25.12 @ 9:26AM

In 2004, Planned Parenthood initiated a ploy to overcome the blood-splattered guilt syndrome so common in Post-Abortive Woman. According to Planned Parenthood, rather than being uncomfortable or regretful with their pro-choice choice, women should be celebrating openly and unapologetically: there is nothing to hide. After all, as one abortion provider commented abortion is as American as apple pie. So what purgative did Planned Parenthood contrive to consummate the catharsis? T-shirts emblazoned with the verbiage, "I Had an Abortion."

Interesting, have never seen one. Need not wonder why: it is not possible to destroy the pure and innocent image of oneself implanted within without conviction. Moreover, it is not possible to destroy the pure and innocent image God implanted within, an image of Himself, without conviction! "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (cf. Genesis 1:26-27).

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:10PM

When Sarah Palin was the VEEP candidate we know who all those women were who have had an abortion. They hated her because she chose to have a Downs child rather than abort him.

Teaghan| 1.25.12 @ 7:16PM

She is the epitome of the true feminist. She has it all, or did anyway. The job, the good lookin' husband, the kids. She had the conviction of her faith, being saved by the blood of Christ, to have her son, who in the eyes of the democrats, is flawed.
I applaud her courage and her faith.

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 9:29AM

Abortion is what I refer to as a Stalingrad issue: It has little strategic importance but great symbolic virtue and it's a major battleground both sides put a lot of energy into.

Abortion is kind of like drug prohibition except that it's even easier to get a so-called illegal abortion via tourism. A pot smoker can't afford to fly into Amsterdam every weekend so it's impractical but a woman seeking an abortion can certainly afford the trip especially if she's in the middle or upper class. Anti-abortion restrictions therefore would impact the poor disproportionately and consider the demographic consequences of that decision.

On the other hand... the current climate has many conservatives bending over backwards to reward poor women for gestating children out of fear they'll abort them so they look at the other way at unwed motherhood and the welfare state.

So what this means is that if abortion was prohibited at a federal level and the rates of poor women having children skyrocketed even further, the pro-lifers would be making the problem even worse and would probably double down and build up the welfare state further. Middle and upper class women would continue to get abortions or even moreso as their taxes would rise and make raising children less affordable.

Sound familiar? Hint: Look at Paris and London's demographics!

Sigh. Obama's my enemy and my friends are idiots.

Au Contraire| 1.25.12 @ 1:04PM

You've distilled economics of the issue very well, and I agree completely. Do I think abortion is wrong? Yes, and that's why I'd never have one. Nor would I ever encourage anyone to have one and would in fact discourage anyone who told me they intended to have one. But do I think it should be illegal? No. States ought to regulate it, and different states would do so in accordance with local mores.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:03PM

Better yet assholes why dont we force you assholes to go into poor neighborhoods and make you put the poor out of their misery. With your bare hands. This whole I'm against abortion but crap is just gutless. Both of you are part of whats wrong with this country. Gutless wimps.

PolishKnight| 1.26.12 @ 11:19AM

Simple minded and unfunded moral platitudes are also "gutless". So instead of "killing the poor with our bare hands", instead it's ok to just let them starve to death OR pay them to breed and then have them starve to death later.

The world has almost 7 billion people and is still growing so fretting over abortion when it's unlikely to be banned anyway is superfluous. Get over it.

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:46AM

Au Contraire, circa 1850:

"Do I think slavery is wrong? Yes, and that why I'd never own a slave...But do I think slavery should be illegal? No. States ought to regulate it, and different states would do so in accordance with local mores."

PolishKnight| 1.30.12 @ 3:24PM

I doubt anyone is still reading this, but I like the analogy.

Indeed, the civil war was a mess that failed to provide true civil rights for blacks until a full century later (and even then, we live with the mess today) and are now in a constant state of cultural civil war.

I hate the feminist line on this but they have a fundamental point: A "slave" doesn't live in a woman's body. Unless you control women and make them take monthly pregnancy tests before they leave the country, you can't stop them from aborting a "slave." And then, if they do get an abortion, do you charge them with murder? If it's a "child's" life, then why not go for murder 1?

Ironically, abortion rights are not really on the minds of most women today but rather the opposite: A fear of a lack of marriagable men to support them before their biological clock runs out. Conservative pro-lifers just don't "get it" and are going to lose the baby, so to speak, AND the bathwater!

Al Adab| 1.25.12 @ 10:14AM

We need to recognize abortion on demand for exactly what it is: an idolotrous, hedonistic, self indulgent act by those who believe life actions can and should be without consequences. "Unwanted pregnancy" is a euphemism for what? If a particular behavior has an undesirable consequence it may be wise to avoid the behavior. Instead we promote a culture of self-indulgence and irresponsibility which views abortion on demand as a positive good being the act of worship for the goddess Choice to whom we sacrifice living creatures.

What the individual states may determine should be their laws aside, the moral and cultural destruction which this neo-paganism has wrought is clearly understood and should be a warning to us all.

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:57AM

There are "unwanted pregnancies" for which women are not responsible: rape. This single scenario creates a moral conundrum: If it's not the woman's fault and she "selfishly" wants an abortion, then pro-life is about forcing women to bear the children of rapists. If the pro-lifer makes such an exception, then the issue of whether this is about the life of an "unborn" child becomes moot.

In addition, both abortion and contraception kill potential life at various stages (sperm is alive as are ovum) but simultaneously they don't necessarily prevent life in the long term. If a woman intends to have 2 children and aborts 4 in the early first trimester and then has 2 and then stops having children either through contraception or abstinence, the same number of children are born if she had practiced abstinence from the beginning and had only 2 children.

In the meantime, there are plenty of children being born into poverty whether abortion rights exist or not. Is it respecting life to spend so much time obsessing over this issue while billions of children starve to death while pro-lifers blow money on "Christmas gifts" for their family? That BBQ under the Christmas tree could have saved a child's life in Africa! In other words, there is no perfect way to respect life so it appears to just be different religious wars spreading guilt around.

JP| 1.25.12 @ 12:09PM

There is a term in Catholic theology -" intrinsinctly evil".Abortion fits this term to a T. Abortion can never produce a good outcome, not matter what fashion it is in. In the case of rape, one has to focus on the child. There have been plenty of people who were conceived by rape, and I seriously doubt anyone them blamed thier mother's for not aborting.

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 1:50PM

There are cases, albeit rare, where abortion is necessary to save a mother's life. Is that a good outcome? Catholic theology also regards contraception as a sin although I don't know if it's "intrinsinctly evil" by the church's definition. The church also prohibits fertility treatments. I saw on Polish TV about a strict Catholic couple who wanted to have children but they would need a doctor to engage in invitro and their priest said it was wrong so they didn't do it. That's a child that would have been raised well who now doesn't exist.

Mender| 1.25.12 @ 9:25PM

Read up on Rick Santorum's wife. Apparently her abortion was special, or something.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:06PM

Why dont we stop treating women like they are so fragile? Sometimes in life we have to do the right thing though it may be hard. Men have made sacrifices why should this be different cause it involves a woman. Society didnt create the way human life is created and the born. Sometimes life isnt fair grow the fuck up.

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:57AM

PolishKnight, how can it be right to kill the unborn child of a rapist for the rapist's crime? Isn't the unborn child of a rapist as innocent as every other unborn child?

Ethel Waters was conceived when her mother was raped at knifepoint. Ethel had problems in her life, as do we all, but she was a fine singer and actress, and much loved by many people. We never know what the future holds for anyone, but every child deserves a chance.

Besides, a 2000 survey by Dr. David Reardon found that out of 192 women who had become pregnant through rape or incest, more than 90 percent of those who had aborted their babies said that they would discourage other mothers from doing so. Ninety-four percent (94%) of the rape victims and 100% of the incest victims told Reardon that abortion was NOT a good option for women in their situations.

Raping a woman is a terrible injustice, but so is sentencing her baby to death. Doing violence to the baby will not undo the violence done to mother.

The baby is not the mother's attacker, but is, in fact, a second victim, who should not be executed for the father's crime. Rapists are spared the death penalty, so why should their babies be executed?

What would your reaction be if your mother told you that you had been conceived through rape (or incest)? Would you say, "I should have been killed--my life isn't worth living"? Or would you say, "Thanks, Mom, for giving me a chance--thanks for letting me live"?

PolishKnight| 1.26.12 @ 5:35PM

KyMouse, I was merely replying to Al Adab's argument that abortion was by definition irresponsible. In the case of raped women, they are simply not responsible, literally, for the situation.

Regarding the possibility of children of rape doing well, etc. Certainly, that's possible but STATISTICALLY, probably not. Unless EVERY child is going to be saved everywhere AND provided with adequate food, modern anti-abortion activists are fighting a losing battle so to speak. All the money dedicated to the anti-abortion fight could save many starving children in Africa. I see you didn't address that issue because it shatters moral unambiguity.

In answer to your question posed to me: I doubt my mother would have wanted to raise me. Yes? How many of these children are abused by their mothers or neglected? And if adopted or sent to foster homes, many will live in squalor. In addition, as I pointed out, many children that don't exist due to abortion are made up for when the mother decides to have a child later. So forcing women to not abort "kills" those "potential" children as well. What do you tell them?

I can answer your question this way: I'm glad to have been raised by a mother who wasn't a victim of rape and wouldn't want to be around raised in a squalid household simply to live. That's an honest, personal answer.

Hmmm, this is fun in a way. Imagine It's a Wonderful Life from another point of view. Let's imagine if the evil villain of the film, Mr. Potter hadn't been born and we see families raising children in even more homes, etc. Would you mind if he had been "aborted?" What about aborting Josef Stalin? If the world was better off, I'd be ok with that. Of course, I know that we're playing games with murder here but keep in mind when you talk of potential rape victim children being the next nobel prize winner you should consider all the bad people too.

C Smith| 1.25.12 @ 10:15AM

When God created woman, He gave her compassion, tenderness, and love that only a mother could show a child. And one thing more, the compelling urge to give her own life when require to protect her young.

There is an illustration given in Scripture to encourage us to honor this intent: "You are not to boil a young goat in the milk of its mother" (cf. Exodus 23:19); it is a crime against nature for a mother to harm her young. Yet America has again changed the truth of God into a lie.

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:58AM

This woman-as-cats theory basically disrespects adoptive parents including fathers who protect and raise their young.

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:58AM

This woman-as-cats theory basically disrespects adoptive parents including fathers who protect and raise their young.

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 1:57PM

Its not just America. Abortion has been available in one form or another to most cultures throughout most of history. To say this is only a modern problem is to not completely understand it. Many plants will cause a female to abort her child, this was not unknown in the past. Pacific Islanders used hot rocks placed on the pregnant woman to induce premature labor. There are many examples. I dont really buy into the whole women have more compassion thing. I know families where the man does most of the nurturing and the woman is very callous and uncaring. I think some people have it and some dont. If you are lucky both your parents care and if you are not, neither one does.

Frank Drackman | 1.25.12 @ 10:34AM

Abortion's just another step in the Pussy-Fying of America, just behind Tee-Ball, Helmet Laws, and a Marine Commandant who doesn't laugh at Good All American Marines pissing on dead A-rabs.
Shi*, when I was in Saudi we pissed on Live A-rabs.
Well, more accurately we threw our 1.5 liter water bottles at them, filled with our piss, much more effective actually.
And it served em right, damn cowards, stayin back in the Rear Areas with the Wimmin-Folk.
Seriously, I started Little League in 1972, the last year before they started Tee-Ball, which coincidentally, was the same year of "Roe".
Thats why todays kids are so soft, the Kids who used to steal my lunch money end up in suction cannisters...

Frank "Save a Goat, Shoot an A-rab" Drackman

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 1:43PM

And they never kept score........didn't want to hurt the kiddys feelings.

When I coached in a christian league I told the other coaches thoes 6 yr. olds know who won...so stand by were going to kick your ass.

SUBVET| 1.25.12 @ 1:45PM

Also about the time they stopped grading school papers with RED ink...........and now look what we got.

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:01PM

The Judge explained "Roe" very well. It hinges on the Supreme court deciding that a fetus was not a person. THE GOP has failed to pass a simple law that states that the fetus is a person. If so then abortion is murder and the states would also have to see abortion as a criminal act.

So Roe only matters because we let it matter by how we define a Person.

JP| 1.25.12 @ 12:11PM

By your definition of Personhood all it takes is for a majority to what is a Person - or more importantly what isn't a Person. Substitute non-Person with Untermensch and we are back in Germany circa 1933.

Al Adab| 1.25.12 @ 3:07PM

JP:
...or back to the non-personhood of Dred Scott.

Once we allow law to define who or what is human, we allow law to define who or what is NOT. Birth defects, low IQ, unapproved misogeny? Name it and the totalitarians will do it.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:12PM

How about let science name it. If what was being aborted was found on mars scientist would scream loud and clear " Alien life found on Mars" . Since its a human life logic states that its a human. This person bullshit was only used to circumvent the Constitution and all human beings inalienable right to life given by our Creator. Simple as that just need to stop letting people muddy the waters by changing things like the definition of the word is.

cowgirl| 1.25.12 @ 12:24PM

I volunteer at a Pregnancy Crisis Center that is located in California. If only NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and CNN would do a story on the "otherside of abortion". The one that centers like I volunteer at deal with on a daily basis. The "otherside of abortion" is the mental and emotional trauma that follows young girls and women after they have that abortion. I see it often and most of these women become substance abuse statistics.

Abortion is all about money and power. Those who own abortion clinics become not only wealthy, but powerful. The author mentions the difference between California and South Dakota abortion laws. What the author failed to mention is the difference in wealth between the abortion clinic owners in California and those in South Dakota.

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 2:41PM

I agree with you. People often dont think about what happens after an abortion. I have known women that have had an abortion and it was a huge emotional trauma for them to deal with. It had a significant negative effect on their lives. I have known others that this wasnt the case.

It seems like the easy answer to an unpleasant situation. As often with the easy answer there is more of a cost than what people realize. No one is forcing people to have an abortion, but it is sold as a way to take control of your life and avoid a situation that you find yourself in. The key is to be in control of your life well before you find yourself in that situation. Thats just not on women either, men need to understand this too.

On the opposing side, having a child...people dont realize the number of mothers that have emotional trauma related to the birth of the child....I have known women that were suicidal due to post partum depression that lasted well over 2 years after their child was born. There should be full disclosure on both sides of the fence.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:15PM

I wonder if there was post partum depression back in the day. My guess they didnt have time because they were too busy trying to survive. Damn we have become such pussies especially men that we would allow women to kill our children and feel sorry for them at the same time. Like I saw all the time todays men need to grow some balls damn it!

cowgirl| 1.26.12 @ 11:12AM

JR - I agree whole heartedly with you. Society, mostly the feminist agenda, has turned men into babies. We need them back and society needs them back. They need to be "COURAGEOUS".

See the movie "COURAGEOUS" and you will understand why we need men back into society and back into manhood... $CREW the femi-nazis...

Tom| 1.25.12 @ 2:36PM

As Ben Stein once said (I quote from memory), ":A society that casually accepts abortion is probably morally beyond the point of no return."

Dante| 1.25.12 @ 5:08PM

Good, then we are beyond the point of having to debate RvW ever again.

Dante| 1.25.12 @ 3:42PM

As a man whose wife (before we met) was raped and left for dead, but pregnant with a bleeding uterus that her doctors felt could jeopardize her life, I thank God she had the choice, with family and medical council, to end the pregnancy.

Otherwise, she would have suffered twice for the same vicious act had she been put in jail for having a backyard abortion, or worse, dying from such an event.

I don't support the increase in abortion, but I know in my heart that that choice can only be between the woman involved and her concience, her God if she believes, and no one else. Particularly, no politically conservative individual who isn't faced with the same choice, no matter what its cause.

So, thankfully, RvW was dutifully decided and will democratically never be reversed. This alone is one good reason to never let the GOP take full control of the federal gov't.

And for all of you who read my words as tragically abhorrent, know that you are 1) still in the minority and will highly likely remain that way and 2) that you are never going to feel the same way you do now if you ever felt the same way as my wife in her mid-20's two months away from her first marriage.

So don't sactinmoniously act like you would now.

Infernal Logic| 1.25.12 @ 4:17PM

What is tragically abhorrent, is that this individual, who was denied the sanctity of life, would have accomplished, among many, many accomplishments, during a lengthy, and fruitful, life, having been put up for adoption, the accomplishment of inventing an invention that would have infallbly prevented another individual from ever raping another human being ever again, and whose accomplishments were so profitable they would have allowed this individual to charitably provide this invention, at no cost, to every individual on the planet. --- G*D

Dante| 1.25.12 @ 5:10PM

You're moronic response indicates you couldn't possibly see another side to this argument, let alone my wife's perspective.

That failing is why so many on anti-abortion side are capable of civil or intelligent discourse. Your loss.

StephenF| 1.25.12 @ 6:52PM

Worst case scenarios don't make good law.

So there were 2 victims, your wife and the child you are so happy is dead.

Dante| 1.25.12 @ 7:59PM

I am not happy that a zygot was aborted, but I am very happy that my wife got to make the choice she did under the circumstances and that she survived the risk to you life.

You are not one to judge victims unless you have been one yourself in this regard.

Margie| 1.25.12 @ 7:23PM

I truly wonder how her bleeding uterus was helped by an abortion.

Dante| 1.25.12 @ 8:12PM

She lost her uterus in the proces since the stab wound to her stomach after the rape created an infection and prevented an ability to judge the viability of the pregnancy and my wife's health safe enough to go forward.

By the way, her then fiance, who was tied up and forced to watch the rape before he was beat to hell from which he never physically or emotionally recovered, was rendered incapable after this of managing the laundry mat that they owned and was robbed during the rape. So, my wife couldn't have possibly have raised a child under those desperate circumstances.

Carrying to term a constant reminder of all she lost over about $3,900 in cash, including her ability to later have children, or her future marriage to a damaged man she loved, all because she was the pretty white girl in the picture, was a a little more than she could handle at age 26. And all you sanctimonious Monday-morning quarterbacks can say is that there was help out there for her if she just looked for it!

But it's so easy for you to sit in your computer chair and type away in digust and condemnation of what you couldn't possiby have imagined could happen to you, or to your daughters, but can easily feel so good about castizing those for whom it did.

Thankfully, and I mean this with great sincerety, there are far more women and men in this country who are happy for RvW and will fight like hell to keep it the law of land despite your holier-than-thou useless objections.

Margie| 1.25.12 @ 9:32PM

Personally, I think you're an holier-than-thou Troll.
But then, that's just me.

W| 1.25.12 @ 8:59PM

If her life was in danger then she would have gotten a legal abortion even before 1973.

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:20PM

Whats sad is you seem proud of your wife for killing innocent life. Now I'm no Doctor so I cant say I wouldve been against the abortion if having the baby wouldve killed her. But I can say this I'm proud of my wife for becoming a nurse and dedicating her life to SAVING human beings. So kiss my ass with the in the minority statement. Btw more and more young women are pro life then pro abortion so I dont see how you can believe that.

Roy| 1.25.12 @ 4:14PM

This is interesting, but not really true. Any serious attempt to reduce abortion has to include a legal component, and those are meaningless as long as they run headlong into Roe.

cicero| 1.25.12 @ 5:13PM

From another angle: We have about 12 million illegals in this country that the left want to keep so that they can do the work that Americans either won't do (at the wages offered), or are not here to do. On the other hand, we have destroyed about 12 million putative American since Roe. Could there be a connection?

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 5:48PM

Come on Clit, let's get it on! Wanna debate CATHOLISM , the CATHOLIC CHURCH and their abuse of children???????????. I'm waiting, and don't post your usual C&P ignorance. State your factual ignorance!!!!!!!1

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 7:53PM

Factual ignorance?

What the fuck is "factual ignorance." The ignorance based on made up right wing "facts" peddled by Fox Noise and Rush Limbaugh?

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:39PM

No, the truth of the NYT, WaPo, SFC, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN etc which feeds every GD newspaper that you and everybody else reads and becomes indoctrinated-brqainwashed with daily; which tells the Hope & Change message of the Democratic Party composed of socialists-domestic terrorists; which breeds the Acorn community organizers promoting wealth redistribution principles of ROB FROM THE RICH TO GIVE [VIA GOVERNMENT] TO THE POOR, THE LAZY, THE STUPID AND THE WORTHLESS; that propagandizes that everything in life should be FAIR and EQUAL even though some work their asses off for what they attain while others sit on their asses and collect welfare from the government given forth from Democrats who dictatorially dispense same in return for the votes of their indigent recipients. These words of STUPIDITY are provided by the likes of Murrow, Kronkite, Edwards, Kuric, Brokow, Smith, Shultz, Maddow, Matthews etc to their adoring idiot viewers, lap dogs, fools who gulp down their fed propaganda nightly and believe every provarication told to them by such agents of the Democratic Party. No Mike if as you say '.....Factual ignorance?..... The ignorance based on made up right wing "facts" peddled by Fox Noise and Rush Limbaugh?....' was prevelent throughout the viewing/reading/intelligent public, THEN BARACK OBAMA WOULD NOT BE POTUS TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:53PM

Is 'Mike' another name when you're not using 'Clint', since my above post was directed purposely to him [or are you by chance just an ardent admirer of his perhaps]?????

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 10:59PM

Oldefarte,

The gas you expelled was the most intelligent thing to issue from your body today.

Oldefarte. Very apt.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 8:58PM

Yeah, Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

" The Associated Press reported recently that three insurance companies receive upward of 260 reports each year of young people under 18 being sexually abused by Protestant clergy, challenging the assumption that clergy sexual abuse is an exclusively Catholic problem that does not take place in other churches.

That is a higher number than the annual average of 228 “credible accusations” brought against Catholic clerics in records reported by the Catholic Church in response to media scrutiny, a priest observed in a Fox News commentary questioning why the story isn’t garnering more attention. "

Catholic Clint Steps On The Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

Margie| 1.25.12 @ 9:38PM

Clint is a "choice" example of the cult of Catholicism, folks.
A "true" believer in all that it "teaches".
The more indoctrinated they are, the more VILE.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 9:46PM

Uh Oh !
American Spectator's Maniac Anti-Catholic White Trash Joisey Bigot Broad , Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Is In The Building.

steve| 1.25.12 @ 10:35PM

Margie is lonely and cruising for a fight. Ignore her, maybe she will go away. She knows the only replies she gets is when she attacks Catholics.

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 7:51PM

Does Roe still matter? Given that so many the Red State white (yes, that's right-white) women are having their babies out of wedlock, I guess the answer is no.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:46PM

Well if they had the brains to either duct tape their legs together or [as Nancy once said] JUST SAY NO [and to slap the dumbarsses that seduce them with paternity legal suits], then Roe would not matter certainly, but oh no, they have to idolize Britney and Kim and every other Hollywood bimbo moron and end up BARE-FOOT AND PREGNANT WITH A DIME IN THEIR POCKET as a result!!!!!!!!

Mike| 1.25.12 @ 11:06PM

Oldfarte,

You are probably unaware of the fact that white males without a high school diploma are the most reliable Republican voters. These are the guys knocking up the women, many of whom vote Republican. The divorce rate is highest in Red States. Red States get more money from Wasshington tha they send in taxes, yet they complain about taxes.

I glean this information from the Wall Street Journal.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 9:04PM

Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Catholic Clint Steps On The Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

Margie| 1.25.12 @ 9:42PM

Deeply indoctrinated Catholics are also very well "trained" in trying to justify the SIN of their cult leaders.

Yet Christ teaches us that if the eye of the body is dark, how GREAT is the darkness. Mt. 6:23.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 9:49PM

American Spectator's Maniac Anti-Catholic White Trash Joisey Bigot Broad , Apocalyptic Crank Lady Margie Is In The Building.

Serve Your Crap Sandwich To The Crippled Russkie, Victer, Joisey White Trash Bigot, Margie.

Papist Dan| 1.25.12 @ 10:24PM

BIGOT ALERT!!!!BIGOT ALERT!!!
The village Bigot has crawled from under her rock to grace us with her daily anti-Catholic bigotry. She pretends to be a Christian and lecture everybody here, but she is a fraud and charlatan. She does not believe that Jesus is God and doesn't believe in the Trinity so she isn't a Christian. She is just a plain intolerant stupid bigot.
Her reply will be: liar, papist, punk, repent.
Go back under your rock Bigot.

steve| 1.25.12 @ 10:36PM

Margie who?

PCP Smoker| 1.25.12 @ 9:09PM

What was the point of the article? Federalism works? So f*ing what? Yes, liberals states will embrace the worst of liberalism, while red states will not. California and NY have had a large number of its citizens deport themselves to other states. That's the nature of our system and the reason why Roe is so obnoxious. Next article for Allot, "Why Cupcakes Taste Good."

Margie| 1.25.12 @ 10:46PM

Catholic Trolls indoctrinated with the Apostate Religion's teachings actually believe that Christians who stand on Scripture are Heretics.

This is why they don't want the pervert priests punished.
Look at the lengths they'll go to minimize their crimes, by insisting that others molest more children than the Catholic priests.
Who cares what Religion they are. They should all get Christ's punishment, and they WILL.
Which is a millstone tied around their necks and drowned in the Sea.
Look it up.
INSTEAD: The victims and the victim's families are bought off by the Catholic cult instead of punishing the priests, as they should be punished.

Deliver Us From Evil, the movie. Check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0814075/

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 12:52AM

Margie,

No Catholic defends any priest who commits any crime. Any priest who commits a crime should go to jail, period.

Where have you been? Hope all is well with you and Victor.
God Bless!

PCP Smoker| 1.26.12 @ 5:53AM

The Devil resides within you. Time to either abort yourself and Victor, whoever the creep is, or get an exorcism.

W| 1.26.12 @ 4:02PM

MullahMargie
You are one sick creep.
Get a life.

POST American| 1.26.12 @ 12:01AM

-------------------BOTTOM LINE------------------------

"DO you realize that for decades now,
young women have been indoctrinated
to turn on their offspring ---in the name
of convenience, even 'lifestyle'?
DO you realize what's been done to your
society? ---what this means?
HAVE you ANY idea? --any idea at all?"

AS someone who've experienced this
personally we can, with full conscousness
report ----'a--bore--shun' --is far more
accurately termed 'extermination of the
unborn'.

------------------------THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

MARGIE| 1.26.12 @ 2:55PM

THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS ON AMERICA'S ABORTION CARTEL

http://abortiondocs.org/

MARGIE| 1.26.12 @ 3:04PM

Jesus Christ is LORD.
Christians believe the Bible.
Catholics believe the false and demonic teachings of the Vatican.
Such as Transubstantiation, Mary as SINLESS and co-Redemptrix with Christ and Mother of God.

There are hundreds of other false teachings of the Apostate Religion.

It's Popes and their minions tortured and killed Bible believing Christians for six centuries because they refused to accept these demonic teachings.
And it has still not repented of these false teachings to this very day.

The above liars are prime examples of the lies and slander this cult practices against anyone who dares speak the truth, and of the pure hatred they have towards Bible believing Christians.

Learn the history of this Apostate Religion here, and read the testimonies of those that they tortured before killing them, and see how they speak to the Christians:

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 6:25PM

Margie,

Can't you ever make a statement about the Catholic Church without making a mistake? The Church does not call Our Lady "Co-Redemptrix", yet. Besides, I'm sure you don't know what that term even means.

All of the other doctrines that you listed are teachings of Christ. Christ taught them to the Apostles, who, in turn, taught them to Saints Timothy, Titus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. And they taught them to others, like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

Ignatius and Irenaeus are praised in Martyrs Mirror, as you already know.
God Bless!

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 7:07PM

You lie, as always.
Your cult teaches Mary was SINLESS, and it teaches PRAYER to her for forgiveness.
YOU ARE DECEITFUL.

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 7:40PM

And you still can't get it right, Margie.

The first part of your statement is correct. Our Lady was sinless. It's in the Bible. I showed you, remember?

The second part of your statement is false. The Catholic Church does not teach us to pray to the Blessed Virgin Mary for forgiveness. Only God can forgive sins.

I've corrected you so many times about these subjects, you should have them down pat by now. Why do you keep making these simple mistakes?

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 8:42PM

You're a Pope worshipper and liar.

This is a lie, it is NOT in the Bible. Mary was NOT sinless.

Why do you keep lying to the Holy Spirit Who says:

"..since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.." Rom. 3:23.

And, you do teach prayer to her.

"Hail Mary, full of Grace... blah, blah, blah."

You are filled with deceit.

I hope you repent.

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 12:09AM

For the millionth time, Catholics do not worship the Holy Father. We give him the reverence he is due.

Are you really going to bring up Romans 3:23, again? I've proven, repeatedly, that Saint Paul was speaking generally. You never answered all of my very simple questions, remember?

"And, you do teach prayer to her."

That wasn't what you wrote, was it? Who is the deceiver, again?
You wrongly asserted that Catholics pray to Our Lady "for forgiveness".
This is WRONG.

We pray to Our Lady for her intercession on our behalf. We also pray to Saint Joseph, the step-father of Christ, for his intercession. We also pray to thousands of other saints for their intercession. Just as Saint Paul asked others to do for him in his first letter to Timothy (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-2).

We all have recourse to all of these saints to intercede on our behalf. We may also go straight to Christ for our petitions. But, according to the Bible, the best way to get heard by the King, is to go to the Queen Mother herself (cf. 1 Kings 2: 12-20).

W| 1.26.12 @ 3:36PM

W| 1.26.12 @ 3:37PM

Thanks Papist Dan for the message.
MullahMargie,
Go play with your snakes.

Papist Dan| 1.26.12 @ 4:01PM

OK, W.

I will use yours.

MullahMargie
Go Play with your snakes.

Marc Jeric| 1.26.12 @ 5:17PM

Roe vs. Wade, or whatever this SC decision is called, was extracted from "the emanations from the penumbras of the Constitution". When I first read that decision I thought it was a bad joke.

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 5:57PM

OF THE UNGODLY AND FALSE CHURCH, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AND THE ORIGIN, PROGRESS AND SUCCESSION OF THE SAME THROUGH ALL TIMES

OF THE EVIL SUCCESSION OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, CONSISTING ONLY IN THE SUCCESSION OF THE PERSONS, AND NOT OF THE DOCTRINE

Here is to be considered the great error of the Romanists, when they without regarding the true succession of the doctrine build on, and parade the succession of the persons, who either from the beginning of the world, or from the time of the apostles have existed throughout, as they pretend up to the present time; surely a very insignificant matter!*
For, if they reckon from the beginning of the world, we have shown, that Cain, who was a murderer, has had his successors as well as Abel, who was slain for the sake of his faith** and godliness.

*"Trust ye not in lying words," saith the Lord,"saying, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, The temple of the Lord, are these" (Jer. 7:4).
*"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and he being dead yet speaketh" (Heb. 11:4). And also, if they reckon from the time of the apostles, we have demonstrated that at that time already there were many apostates, yea, adversaries of the Christian religion and the true worship of God; and that more have followed, according to the prophecies and predictions which the holy apostles uttered and left to posterity.
Hence it follows, that neither the antiquity, nor the long or great succession of persons, can assure the truth of any religion or church, since the evil is as ancient as the good, and the erring spirits and evildoers have had, and still have, as great a succession as the true believers and good; unless the antiquity, and the succession of persons be accompanied with the divine truth and piety possessed by the upright ancients in the beginning.
OBJECTION OF THE PAPISTS, BY MEANS OF THREE PASSAGES

But, in order to maintain the aforementioned succession, the Papists are accustomed to say, that they do not reckon the same from the antiquity of some erring spirits who were before, in, or after the time of the apostles; but from the church of Christ itself, and from Peter, whom they styled the prince of the apostles, upon whom Christ Himself, as they asserted, wished to build His church. Bell. lib. I. de pont Rom. cap. 10. Quansuy ex.
To this they add as a second argument, that to him and no other, were given, by Christ, the keys of heaven, to open or to close the same according to his pleasure.
And, thirdly, that the Lord thrice commanded him-more than the other apostles-to feed His flock, that is, His church.
Moreover, that he occupied the Roman throne, and that the popes succeeded him therein.
To prove this supremacy of Peter, and, consequently, the succession of the popes in his place, they have, for a long time already, misused three passages of holy Scripture, namely Matt. 16:18, 19; and John 21:15-17; to which we will reply in the following.

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 6:36PM

From page 106 of Martyrs Mirror:

IGNATIUS, A DISCIPLE OF THE APOSTLE JOHN, DEVOURED BY WILD BEASTS IN A CIRCUS AT ROME, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE SON OF GOD, A. D. 111

Ignatius, a disciple of the apostle John, and a successor of Peter and Evodius, was in the service of the church of Christ at Antioch in Syria. He was a very God-fearing man, and faithful and diligent in his ministrations. He was surnamed Theophorus, that is, The Bearer of God, apparently because he often bore the name of God and his Saviour in his mouth, and led a godly life. He was wont to say frequently, "The life of man is a continual death, unless it be that Christ liveth in us." Likewise, "The crucified Christ is my only and entire love." And, "He that allows himself to be called after any other than Christ, is not God." And again, "As the world hates the Christians, so God loves them." A. Mellin., fol. 15, col. 1, from. Iqnat. in EQist. ad Row. et alibe.

Jesus Christ is GOD.

p.s. Notice that Saint Ignatius' surname, Theophorus, is similar to Theotokis, the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which means God Bearer.
I guess MM is blaspheming, eh Margie?

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 8:51PM

" Notice that Saint Ignatius' surname, Theophorus, is similar to Theotokis, the title given to the Blessed Virgin Mary, which means God Bearer."

By whom was the title given?? The Pope? Yes, the Satanic Popes.
Nowhere in the Bible is Mary said to be Mother of God, but of the physical Christ only.

You cultists make no distinction.

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 11:42PM

"By whom was the title given??"

Which one? Theotokos (I misspelled it, earlier)? Or Theophorus?

I believe the title Theotokos began in the early Eastern Church. It became a formal teaching of the Council of Ephesus, in A.D. 431, to counter the heretic, Nestorius.

Theotokos literally means the one who gives birth to God. One who gives birth is called a mother. Jesus Christ is God. Therefore, the Blessed Virgin Mary was the Mother of God.

This title affirms Christ's Divinity, and has nothing to do Mary's status. Our Lady is a creature, like the rest of us. Except, she was created without sin, and never disobeyed or sinned against God through her entire life. She was still just a plain human.

Theotokos is stating that Christ was true God and true man. He had both natures as Son of God. And, calling Christ LORD is the same as calling Him God.

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 12:15AM

You didn't answer my question, either.
Is MM blaspheming when it says that Saint Ignatius was called Theophorus?

W| 1.26.12 @ 6:16PM

MullahMargie
You still have not answered who is receiving the $549 per week since Aug 2009 in unemployment comp.
Is it Victor or you?
Come clean, Mullah.
What does your bible say about unemployment comp?

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 7:05PM

Christians worship Jesus Christ.
Vatican worshippers worship the Pope, who is a fraud and a liar.
There is no such thing as Popery in the Bible, it's a lie.
There is no such thing as a "Vicar" of Christ on Earth.
It is an abomination to God.
There is no such thing as Transubstantiation~ the blasphemous teaching of Cannibalism. It teaches that Jesus' Body is actually physically present and you physically eat it.
Also, infant baptism.
This is a DEMONIC teaching, it is NOT in the Bible, and is a LIE.

Read the Bible, it is what Christians live by.

The liars who worship the Pope and the Vatican's blasphemous teachings have nothing but personal attacks to offer. They will try and destroy the messenger.
They care NOTHING for the Truth.

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.

Jesus is LORD.

Read the TRUTH here, about how the Papists burned and killed Christians who rejected these blasphemous teachings and stood for the testimony to Jesus Christ and His Truth instead, according to the Bible:

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY: SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY

FOURTEEN PERSONS, THE CHIEFEST OF WHOM WAS CALLED STEPHEN, BURNED AS HERETICS FOR THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRUTH, BY THE PAPISTS, AT ORLEANS, IN FRANCE, NEAR THE CLOSE OF A. D. 1022

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs036.htm

The Catholic Religion (cult) has never repented from these false teachings which they still teach to this very day and by them deceive millions of people.

This cult put to death millions of Bible believing Christians like me for six centuries.

"Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; for her sins are heaped high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.

Render to her as she herself has rendered, and repay her double for her deeds; mix a double draught for her in the cup she mixed." Rev. 18:4-6.

" For men have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and thou hast given them blood to drink. It is their due!" Rev. 16:6.

The blood of the Christian Martyrs is on their hands, and continues to be because it has never repented of its false and abominable teachings which have nothing to do with Christ and His Gospel of Grace.

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 7:51PM

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel -- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ." - Galations 1:6-7

"Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ." - Galatians 1:10

"So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander." - 1 Peter 2:1

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 8:24PM

So you don't think the Popes and their minions who Murdered Christians for six centuries have their blood on their hands?

Of course you don't, because you're a liar and Idolator.

You are deceived and a deceiver who like the Murderous Popes that you still listen to (in their false and blasphemous teachings), you agree with th Murderers, that the Christians who stood on the Word of God were HERETICS!

You're a sick fool.

I hope you repent.

Nick| 1.26.12 @ 11:19PM

Margie,

No pope ever killed anyone, to the best of my knowledge. All clerics are forbidden from shedding blood. I've told you this before, remember?

And, any professed Catholic, who then publicly professes doctrines counter to those of the Church, is a heretic. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

The doctrines of the Catholic Church came directly from Christ, Who taught them to the Apostles. And, they taught them to "faithful men" like Timothy, Titus, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Polycarp. And they taught them to "others", like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 11:53PM

You're worse than a Holocaust denier, as the Papists put to death millions of Christians who stood on Scripture, and denied the blasphemous teachings of these perverted and ungodly men.

Hitler did it in the name of Satan. The Popes did it in the Name of GOD~ WHO IS WORSE, THEN?

"The doctrines of the Catholic Church came directly from Christ, Who taught them to the Apostles. "

REALLY, NICK??

WHEN did Christ teach Mary was sinless?
WHEN did Christ teach prayer to the dead?
WHEN did Christ teach infant baptism?
WHEN did Christ teach TRANSUBSTANTIATION?
WHEN did Christ teach pennance?
WHEN did Christ teach Sacraments?
WHEN did Christ teach Salvation by works?
WHEN did Christ teach baptism equals Salvation?
WHEN did Christ teach priests had to be celibate?
WHEN did Christ teach anything about PRIESTS or Popes?

ANSWER: HE NEVER DID!!

And WHEN did Christ tell the Apostles to put so-called heretics to death??

OF THE DECREE WHICH BY THE ROMANISTS WAS
PUBLISHED IN THE NETHERLANDS, ABOUT THE
YEAR 1521, AGAINST ALL WHO BELIEVED
OTHERWISE THAN THE ROMAN
CHURCH; AND WHAT MISERY
RESULTED THEREFROM

By virtue of this decree all who believed otherwise than the Roman church, or who had such books in their possession, or harbored such heretics or people, and all those whom the magistrates were commanded to apprehend, were strictly sentenced to death; and not only these, but also all who in any wise were suspected of heresy; every Roman Catholic being required to denounce every suspected person, who, upon the testimony of two witnesses, were, according to the instruction of the judges, sentenced to death, their property confiscated, and one third of it given to the accusers and witnesses, though said witnesses had but little to
say, only so that they were known as good Catholics by their pastor or priest.
If any one from fear took to flight, no one was allowed to intercede for him, or plead his innocence, neither the father for the child, nor brother for brother; but he was condemned on account of his flight, and his property confiscated.
Though one did even desist from his so-called error, and suffered himself to be better in

*In the following a few words are changed, without altering the sense, however.
structed, as it were, by the pastor, according to the Romish manner, he had nevertheless to die. No greater mercy was shown him than that he was not put to death by fire, but executed with the sword.
The women were buried alive, and no judge could mitigate these decrees, unless he was willing to be regarded as a protector of the heretics, and be proceeded against as such.
From this decree (the one first spoken of) made by imperial power and authority, others were produced, and issued, almost every year.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs056.htm

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 12:20AM

"as the Papists put to death millions of Christians who stood on Scripture"

No, they didn't. It never happened.

"WHEN did Christ teach [...]."

In the Bible, which I have shown you over and over and over again.
Your Invincible Ignorance keeps you from seeing the Truth.

"And WHEN did Christ tell the Apostles to put so-called heretics to death??"

Umm, never. Again, clerics are forbidden to shed blood. It was the secular authorities who tried and executed heretics.

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 12:26AM

"You're worse than a Holocaust denier"

Nice lefty-lingo, there, Margie.
What are you going to call me next? Un-American?

W| 1.26.12 @ 7:36PM

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 8:38PM

OF THE UNGODLY LIFE AND DISORDERLY CONDUCT OF SOME OF THE POPES

Many of the ancient writers, even good Romanists, are so replete with the manifold ungodly and extremely disorderly conduct of some of those who occupied the papal chair, and are placed in the Register of the true successors of Peter, that one hardly knows how to begin, much less how to end.*
We shall therefore, so as not to cause any doubts as regards our impartiality, not adduce all, but only a few, and these not the worst, but, when contrasted with those whom we shall not mention, the very best examples of the kind; and shall then soon leave them, as we have no desire to stir up this sink of rottenness, and pollute our souls with its stench.
Concerning the simony or sacrilege of some popes, a brief account is given from Platina and other papistic writers, in the Chronijk van den Ondergang, 9th Book, for the year 828. p. 281. cot. 2. and p. 282. cot. 1. The writer of said chronicle, having related the complaint of the king of France.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs008.htm

Margie| 1.26.12 @ 8:45PM

THE GROUNDLESSNESS [OF THE ALLEGATIONS] OF THOSE WHO ARE ACCUSTOMED TO DEDUCE THE ROMAN SUCCESSION FROM PETER THE HOLY APOSTLE, AND WHEREIN THIS CONSISTS

Besides that the three proposed passages are of no use to the papists in proving the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles and the whole Christian church, there follow various reasons and circumstances which show clearly, that the succession of the popes, which they would deduce from Peter, cannot stand, but is unfounded and untrue.
For, to come to the point, it cannot be shown, that Peter was ever at Rome, (where the seat of the pope is placed), except at the close of his life, and then he was not received as pope, but was put to death as a martyr, with Paul, his fellow apostle, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, as we have circumstantially shown in the History of the Holy Martyrs,of the year 69 A. D. Also, Egesi¢p. Hist. van de verstoring Jerusalem, 3. Bock, 2 cap. Also, W. Band. Apopth. Christian, lib. I. ex Hieron. de vitis illustribus. Johan. Strac. in festo Johan. Evang, etc.
Eusebius quotes from Dionysius, a teacher of the church at Corinth, concerning the coming of Paul and Peter to Rome, as also concerning their preaching, which was the cause of their death, these words: They (namely Paul and Peter) were both together in our congregation at Corinth, teaching (from) there (on) throughout all Italy; they taught also in this city (namely, Rome, of which he had first spoken); where they both were crowned martyrs at the same time. Euseb. Pamph. Chron. Eccl. Edition of 1,588 lib. 2. cap. z,5.
He speaks of Peter's coming to, and preaching at, Rome, even as if having taken place at the close of his life; and although he puts Paul's coming and preaching in the same time, Paul's coming to this city, nevertheless, happened much earlier than the coming of Peter, which took place shortly before their death; in which time both together preached the holy Gospel in that city.
That Paul was there much earlier and longer, appears from all the circumstances of the Acts of the apostles; for while Peter was preaching at Cesarea, Antioch, Jerusalem, and in other places, Paul was brought to Rome, and, having arrived there,"dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him." Here the account of the Acts of the Apostles ends, without mentioning anything further of Peter. See Acts 28:30, 31.

http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/martyrs007.htm

Nick| 1.27.12 @ 1:27AM

PAPAL AUTHORITY

"And I tell you, you are Kephas, and on this kephas I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:18-19

"When they came to Caper'na-um, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, 'Does not your teacher pay the tax?' He said, 'Yes.' And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, 'What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?' And when he said, 'From others,' Jesus said to him, 'Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself.'" - Matthew 17:24-27

"'Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.'" - Luke 22:31-32

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

"I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things." - 2 Peter 1:13-15

"[...] of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known [...]." - Col. 1:25

"But it is God who establishes us with you in Christ, and has commissioned us; he has put his seal upon us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee." - 2 Cor. 1: 21-22

"Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophetic utterance when the council of elders [presbýteros, priests] laid their hands upon you." - 1 Timothy 4: 14

"Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man's sins; keep yourself pure." - 1 Timothy 5:22

"Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands; for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control." - 2 Timothy 1: 6-7

"I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers [like pastor Testa] to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." - 2 Timothy 4: 1-4

APOSTOLIC TRADITION

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." - 1 Cor. 11:2

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thess. 2:15

"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." - 2 Timothy 1:13-14

"You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." - 2 Timothy 2:1-2

"Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father." - 1 John 2:24

"We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." - 1 John 4:6

W| 1.26.12 @ 9:51PM

Afraid to answer, Mullah?

POST American| 1.27.12 @ 11:11PM

----------USURY is ABOMINATION

Psychopathic, fractional reserve USURY
------is TREASONOUS.

USURY ------is------- 'deviant' economy

USURY promotes and upholds deviance

USURY is upheld by deviants

USURY begets----'Marksism' and EUGENICS
-----------------------BOTH-------------------------

The FINAL ACT of BOTH ---is GENOCIDE.

-------------------------------Getting it? ----YET?

kraldiziler | 2.2.12 @ 6:55PM

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|27 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

Clip of the Day

H/T to National Review Online

The American Spectator

The Nation's Pulse

Does Roe Still Matter?

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (157) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Brother John| 1.25.12 @ 6:21AM

Jack in Wi.| 1.25.12 @ 7:29AM

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:12PM

Rich D| 1.25.12 @ 9:49PM

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:33PM

Brubaker| 1.25.12 @ 7:01PM

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 8:01PM

Dr. X| 1.25.12 @ 9:07PM

Mender| 1.25.12 @ 9:22PM

Dr. X| 1.25.12 @ 9:49PM

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 10:22AM

Mimi| 1.25.12 @ 3:26PM

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 3:30PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:42PM

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 7:18AM

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:14PM

Boar Hunter| 1.25.12 @ 1:28PM

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 8:52PM

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:58PM

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 8:55PM

Appleby| 1.25.12 @ 7:20AM

c.j. acworth| 1.25.12 @ 7:35AM

JP| 1.25.12 @ 8:41AM

fmm| 1.25.12 @ 11:19AM

StephenF| 1.25.12 @ 11:27AM

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 11:56AM

Dick Nome| 1.25.12 @ 1:12PM

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 3:53PM

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 1:40PM

THKrupp| 1.25.12 @ 2:19PM

TrueBlue | 1.26.12 @ 1:06PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:48PM

Frank Drackman| 1.25.12 @ 7:36AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 10:46AM

Henry Calvin| 1.25.12 @ 11:17AM

Timothy L. Pennell| 1.25.12 @ 4:21PM

Teaghan| 1.25.12 @ 7:09PM

Henry Calvin| 1.26.12 @ 11:00AM

Alan Brooks| 1.25.12 @ 8:03PM

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:41AM

Frank Drackman | 1.25.12 @ 8:29AM

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 8:52AM

Frank Drackman | 1.25.12 @ 9:27AM

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:07PM

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 12:41PM

Moe Blotz| 1.25.12 @ 12:45PM

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 11:58AM

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:08PM

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 3:57PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:52PM

JP| 1.25.12 @ 8:35AM

Seek| 1.25.12 @ 4:01PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:56PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 10:57PM

Mac Jehoff| 1.25.12 @ 8:50AM

C Smith| 1.25.12 @ 9:26AM

Pete| 1.25.12 @ 12:10PM

Teaghan| 1.25.12 @ 7:16PM

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 9:29AM

Au Contraire| 1.25.12 @ 1:04PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:03PM

PolishKnight| 1.26.12 @ 11:19AM

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:46AM

PolishKnight| 1.30.12 @ 3:24PM

Al Adab| 1.25.12 @ 10:14AM

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:57AM

JP| 1.25.12 @ 12:09PM

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 1:50PM

Mender| 1.25.12 @ 9:25PM

JR| 1.25.12 @ 11:06PM

KyMouse| 1.26.12 @ 11:57AM

PolishKnight| 1.26.12 @ 5:35PM

C Smith| 1.25.12 @ 10:15AM

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:58AM

PolishKnight| 1.25.12 @ 10:58AM