|click here for Today's News & Views|
By Jacki Ragan
After eight years of the most relentlessly pro-abortion administration our nation has ever known, Americans in 2000 chose a man as firmly pro-life as Bill Clinton (and Al Gore) was pro-abortion. But George W. Bush's triumph, as crucial as it was, is only half the battle.
For pro-life President Bush to be able to sign pro-life measures and defeat pro-abortion initiatives he needs not just a House of Representatives sympathetic to the cause of life but a United States Senate as well. That is what the 2002 elections, now only weeks away, are all about.
Pro-lifers need to be active, energized, and focused
to maintain the pro-life majority in the House of Representatives. Every
bit as important and requiring perhaps even more imagination, effort,
and diligence is changing the composition of the Senate.
From the President
Wanda Franz, Ph.D.
The pro-abortion majority on the U.S. Supreme Court detests the relentless activism of the right-to-life movement. In its 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey, the plurality opinion not only reaffirmed the "essential holding of Roe v. Wade," but also rebuked pro-lifers. The opinion contains this arrogant statement:
"Where in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a case in such a way as to resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe , its decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case does not carry. It is the dimension present whenever the Court's interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."
In other words, we were being told to shut up and go away.
With the gracious permission of the Court, we pro-lifers would like to note that the Court resolved nothing in Roe v. Wade. In fact, Roe v. Wade was and continues to be the very source of what the Court calls a "divisive controversy." The Court created the constitutional crisis in the first place, and that crisis will only go away when the Court's extra-constitutional ruling is reversed.