American Policy Roundtable Logo
  Why Vote Yes on TN Issue 1?
Bookmark and Share

 
 

For the Common Good
By David Zanotti

How Close?

The Philosophy of Science and Medicine
By Dr. Charles McGowen

Affordable Care, Atheism and Astrophysics

A Moment in History
By Dr. Jeff Sanders

"Reliance of the Traveler-- Sharia Law" (Part 2)

The Public Square The Latest on
The Public Square

A Tool that Changes Everything, Part II
October 24, 2014
2 Minute Format Archive

Laugh, Cry, or Go Crazy?
October 24, 2014
60 Minute Format Archive


Sign up for the
Roundtable eNewsletter

Is the Definition of Pro-Life Changing?
Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Printer Friendly PageEmail to a Friend | Bookmark and Share

The Public Square Radio Broadcast - Is the Definition of Pro-Life Changing?
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. 

Is the Definition of Pro-Life Changing? - October 21th, 2005

More programs on The Public Square®