When did the definition of being pro-life
change?
When John Roberts said there
was nothing in his personal beliefs that would keep him from enforcing the
precedent of Roe v. Wade, we thought we knew what that meant. Since 1973
pro-life leaders have clearly understood the precedent of Roe, which means
stretching the 14th Amendment, adopted in the late 1800’s, to fit the
unlimited right to abortion into the US Constitution.
Roe is the ultimate example of distorting the
intent of the Constitution to accomplish a political agenda—in this case, the
killing of unwanted, unborn children.
But pro-life leaders signed off on John
Roberts in spite of his support for Roe.
Now Harriet Miers’ close friend Justice
Hecht, from Texas, has given us a new look at Roe. He says Miss Miers goes to
a pro-life church and is pro-life herself. Then he adds that you can be as
pro-life as the day is long and still believe the Constitution requires Roe v.
Wade.
Sorry—now I’m truly confused.
Is this some crazy real-life version of Alice
in Wonderland, or did we just hear a Justice of the Texas Supreme Court say
you could fully accept Roe v. Wade and still be as pro-life as the day is
long?
Friends, it appears the definition of
pro-life is being turned upside down, and people supporting the Bush
nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court either don’t understand what
is happening or have truly lost their way.
Rewriting history in the digital age is a
much quicker process than it used to be. Most people living today don’t
remember what happened in the Roe decision of 1973. We do, and we still have a
full copy of that case on our website at aproundtable.org.
Now would be a really good time to brush up
on our recent history, and to pray for fellow Christians who claim to be
leaders and spokespeople in the political arena.
Latest Videos
