Roe Vs. Wade Anniversary

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Mother Theresa.

In case you missed it, large crowds of people filled the national mall today to protest Roe Vs. Wade. The Associalist Press reported that there were "tens of thousands" of people there.

With the title 'Yes, the Democrats won' Ben Smith reports President Obama's statement:

Government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

Apparently Barack Obama considers murdering the innocent to be a private matter. Barack, the blood of the infants cries out against you. There is a lot of discussion about how the new president will address this -he has favored conservatives in a couple of his moves. It is still hard to see what he will do, but he didn't reverse the so-called 'gag-rule' preventing US funds from going to abortions outside the US -unlike president Clinton. This gives me a very small amount of hope. His presidency presents the pro-life movement with a dark question mark, but a question mark to some extent.

Wondering if Mitt is posturing for 2012, Ben Smith also reports Romney's comments:

To their great credit, the organizers of the March for Life never let this anniversary pass without speaking to the conscience of America , and calling our nation to uphold its highest ideals in the protection of human life.

Somehow I think Romney's concerns are higher than getting into the White House.

The best article I read today was on the Politico front page. The piece (which you can read here) details many of the myths about Roe vs. Wade. I actually learned a lot reading this one.

Apparently if you told people abortion would not automatically become illegal, Americans would be 40% more in favor of overturning it than keeping it. This was the biggest surprise I found:

The first misconception is that the right to abortion has constitutional roots. But Roe’s justification actually derives from an abstract interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s premise of liberty and the malleable concept of a right to privacy found not in the actual text of the Constitution but rather in its “penumbras” and emanations. These foundations are so dubious that even leading lights on the left have criticized Roe’s legal reasoning. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, has called Roe “heavy-handed judicial intervention.”

Also, check out RedState.com's article on the abortion debate. I borrowed the above picture from there. Here's a snippet from their article:

The primary function of any just government is to prevent and punish the taking of innocent human life. To but state the proposition is to prove it. Nevertheless, 36 years ago today, in the tradition of Scott v. Sanford, the Supreme Court of the United States took it upon themselves to declare that a certain class of humans were not really humans at all.