The practice of infanticide in the United States has experienced an intricate and bipolar history between Federal and State jurisdictions, but that history seems to maintain a few consistent threads despite the political evolution of the practice:
Firstly, that the individual states seem to have always operated freely, independently, and even sometimes dismissively of Federal oversight, including the Supreme Court’s opinion of the Roe Vs Wade case.
Secondly, that when states do decide to pass legislation against abortion, the endeavors always seem to be mere lip service, cartoonishly insincere, affecting no real change towards its stated goal or enforcement of its regulation, but rather serves quite the opposite function in empowering the practice of abortion by institutionalizing it, which is the necessary outcome of giving centralized authority the power to make decisions on any subject.
Thirdly, that the method by which the states retain an active and independent interest in the regulation-but-not-criminalization of abortion, and that, in turn, making abortion entirely institutionalized, happens to be an embedded, but arbitrarily defined idea common to abortion legislation: that risk of harm to the ‘life of the mother’ is sufficient motive to keep abortion as healthcare.
The relationship between these three factors, described by historical examples will be provided in the following paragraphs.
Before Americans began to centralize their power to maintain society into authoritative governments, the subject of abortion was an issue to be handled by communities that, in order to remain strong and healthy, encouraged strong and healthy families. This is not to say that abortion did not exist before authoritative governments, but it is to suggest that there is an inherent correlation between the weakening of families and the strengthening of governments, and that the practice of abortion plays a role in that sociological transference of power.
No doubt women who were recently pregnant could easily obtain substances that would euphemistically ‘restore’ their ‘periods’ and ‘regulate’ their ‘menses’, and receive medical treatments for an ‘obstruction of the monthly period’. These goods and services could be developed and administered at home, or, as society progressed towards a collectivist structuring, purchased from healthcare specialists. That is, until there developed a concerted effort to ‘criminalize’ abortion. Contrary to popular belief, this effort had little to do with abortion being an abhorrent practice characterized by the murder of children, and mostly to do with using the practice of abortion as a propagandized excuse to monopolize the medical industry.
In 1857, the newly organized [American Medical Association] initiated a crusade to make abortion at every stage of pregnancy illegal. The anti-abortion campaign grew in part, James Mohr has shown, out of regular physicians’ desire to win professional power, control medical practice, and restrict their competitors, particularly Homeopaths and midwives. “Regular,” or “orthodox,” physicians, practitioners of “heroic” medicine, had come under attack in the 1820s and 1830s as elitist. They faced competition from a variety of practitioners from other medical sects, collectively known as “Irregulars.” Through the 1870s, regular physicians across the country worked for the passage of new criminal abortion laws. In securing criminal abortion laws, the Regulars won recognition of their particular views as well as some state control over the practice of medicine. (Introduction to When Abortion Was a Crime by Leslie Reagan)
It is important to belabor the point that the initial purpose of criminalizing abortion in the American culture was not to save prenatal children and establish some form of justice, but to stigmatize the practicing of healthcare not performed by centralized institutions, with the added benefit of commercializing abortifacient drugs and procedures, encouraging people to be dependent on those institutions for even their bloodthirsty infanticide. It is for this reason that abortion is referred to as ‘healthcare’ in the common vernacular; because greedy people who make corrupt institutions, petition governments to legislate the common people on their behalf.
By the late 1800s, the majority of the state governments adopted the practice of ‘criminalizing’ abortion, but the common, underhanded exception remained.
The criminal abortion laws passed in every state by 1880 made exceptions for therapeutic abortions performed in order to save a woman’s life. Because the laws governing abortion did not precisely define what was criminal and what was not, this had to be worked out in practice, in policing, and in the courts. (ibid.)
Even though early laws gave lip-service to the criminalization of abortion, they merely took the power of choice from self-governing people, and created a government-protected medical industry that had the power and exclusive privilege of doling out abortion-inducing substances and in-office ‘therapeutic abortion’, or as the industry is starting to call it today: ‘miscarriage management‘. This historical relationship between people and healthcare practitioners licensed by the State is also what originated in some of today’s rhetoric: ‘an abortion is between a woman and her doctor’. These laws are also responsible for the eventual development of abortifacient pharmaceuticals and of giving the medical industry the power over their distribution.
These methods practiced in the states prevailed, even in spite of the federal Comstock Laws inspiring an institutional oversight over the medical industry, which even went so far as to stigmatize abortion as a medical practice. Though that did not stop medical companies from patenting and distributing abortifacients, so long as they navigated around advertising laws.
It was not until 1973 that abortion was no longer seen as an issue to be in the power of the states or, more accurately, the institutionalized medical field, but was seen as an issue under Federal jurisdiction when Norma Jean McCorvey, under the legal moniker ‘Jane Roe’, allowed herself to be living propaganda. Because she did not wish to cross state lines to where it would have been legal to murder one of her children by abortion for any additional reason other than to ‘saving a mother’s life’, she lied about being pregnant by rape so that she could file a lawsuit against the Texas state attorney general, leading to Federal arbitration between her and the state of Texas.
The [Federal] Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.’ (“Roe v. Wade.” Oyez)
We have described elsewhere how the fourteenth amendment, originally meant to offer United States civil citizenship as a remedy for chattel slavery, actually established the precedence for the kind of corvee bondage that God calls sin all throughout Scripture. It is no wonder that the court ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade, in giving a woman total autonomy over her pre-born children, actually galvanizes a maxim of law:
Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father. (1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502)
From this point in history, when the United States federal government decided to step in and exercise its opinion on the abortion issue (without ever actually taking the jurisdiction away from the states), infanticide (up to the first trimester) is suddenly decriminalized across the board, leaving the individual states to determine its own regulations for the rest of gestation. Hyperbolically, the states have always been free to choose how they treat abortion, only now the federal government ruled in favor of that allowance explicitly.
Since 1973, when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion across the United States, states have enacted more than 1,074 [pro -life] laws to limit access to the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a sexual and reproductive rights organization. More than a quarter of these laws passed between 2010 and 2015. (The Surprising History of Abortion in the U.S. CNN. Jessica Ravitz)
While these laws have nominally given credence to the sanctity of human life in the womb, they only ever have practically embedded into the culture that abortion is still just a form of healthcare, and a healthcare that should be made safe for the mother. Examples include numerous laws and regulations regarding: pre-abortion ultrasound requirements, informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, licensing standards, requirements that abortions be committed only by doctors rather than clinic staff, mandatory reporting of complications, wider hallways in abortion clinics, proximity to emergency rooms, sterilized utensils, and many more. These laws, and the culture, do not actually define abortion as a moral issue. They define it as a healthcare issue, and the most qualified people to be able to navigate the abortion topic are the same kinds of people who originally sought to criminalize it for their personal gain: healthcare professionals, and the cartels they have formed with state and federal governments. It is this cartel that actively determines who is qualified to perform ‘miscarriage management’ (abortion). An unsafe abortion is defined by that cartel as an abortion performed outside of health facilities (or any other place ‘legally’ recognized for the procedure) or by an ‘unskilled’ person (WHO 1992). It is no wonder that the authoritative medical industry is still using abortion to monopolize all medical practice using the same rhetoric it did when it first sought to ‘criminalize’ abortion.
What is interesting is that political enthusiasts currently on both sides of the abortion debate are anticipating the federal opinion on Roe v. Wade to be ‘overturned’ sometime in the foreseeable future, and are actively putting forward legislation in their states to work in their favor for when that time comes. This of course, involves actively repealing existing pro-life laws in a gambit to pave the way to not conflict with their potential laws that will go into effect once Roe v. Wade is ‘overturned’.
States like Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky and Arkansas have ‘personhood amendments’, which are trigger laws that are to go into effect the second Roe v Wade is ‘overturned.’
States like New York are rescinding pro-life regulations, as if Roe v. Wade never occurred or set a precedent, all in anticipation of the Roe v. Wade opinion being ignored.
Gallagher said the new law repeals part of the state’s Public Health Law. The repealed part states than in abortions after 20 weeks, a second doctor must be present to “take control of and provide immediate medical care for any live birth that is the result of the abortion.” The repealed part also states: “Such child should be afforded immediate legal protection under the laws of the state of New York, including but not limited to applicable provisions of the social services law, article five of the civil rights law and the penal law.” (S2796)
There is a bill in Oklahoma which seeks to add new laws criminalizing abortion, repeal pro-life laws, and suggests ignoring the federal statutes as an independent state, citing laws from other states that ignore federal laws on marijuana as precedence.
Vermont is processing a bill that seeks to legalize all abortion without regulations as an expression of ‘state sovereignty’. This bill would also go into effect once Roe v. Wade is ‘overturned.’
‘This bill codifies current state of Vermont practice, which has no restrictions on a woman’s access to reproductive healthcare services, including abortion,’ said House Judiciary Committee Chair, Representative Maxine Grad (D-Moretown). ‘It ensures that women’s access to abortion remains unconstrained by the law and gives women certainty under the law.’ (H57)
Except in the case of Vermont’s bill which makes every provision for abortion without exceptions, all of the other bills listed have two things in common: First, that none of them address abortifacient practices like hormonal birth control and In Vitro Fertilization, and second, that in seeking to repeal laws established during the era of Roe v. Wade, will only put into effect the dormant abortion laws of each state that were established between 1880 and 1973; which means that all of them feature the ‘life of the mother’ exception that was originally established to give the medical industry cartel the final say on whether a preborn child lives or dies. None of the bills being put forward to criminalize abortion will possibly work in the way that the filers of the bills intend them to. They will actually create the opposite effect.
Naturally, the ‘healthcare providers’ attached to the mentioned cartel seem to be ahead of the game and foresee how their industry will be affected by the ‘overturning’ of the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Roe v. Wade case, and how the states will revert back to their semi-strict policies regarding abortion. When Cecile Richards retired as the President of Planned Parenthood in 2018, she was succeeded by Baltimore’s Commissioner of Health, Dr. Leana Wen:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America today announced that Dr. Leana Wen will serve as its president — the first time in nearly 50 years that a physician will helm the organization.
Planned Parenthood went fifty years without needing a physician to navigate the future of the company because the Supreme Court’s opinion opened the floodgates to decriminalized abortion. But after fifty years of lip-serviced opposition to abortion, the political climate is getting ready to ‘overturn’ Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood is already prepared to capitalize on that universal ‘life of the mother’ exception and will not be deterred by any potential bill seeking to criminalize abortion.
First, our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight – it’s a fundamental human right and women’s lives are at stake. (Dr. Wen)
Dr. Wen is multi-talented. Having served as the Commission of Health for the city of Baltimore, she brought many lawsuits against the Trump administration concerning government funding and federal regulations over abortion clinics and won, clearly making her an outspoken political advocate as well as a knowledgeable physician. Dr. Wen is an example of the kind of political and medical savvy that it took for abortion to never be fully criminalized and to always be available as healthcare, in the hands of the profit-seeking medical industry. Even if all of the strict abortion laws that existed prior to 1973 are re-established, the ‘life of the mother’ exception will allow the surgical abortion industry to thrive as it always has. The medical cartel already has educational programs in place to train the practices of physicians, obstetricians, and gynecologists in ‘miscarriage management’, which will become a medical service to abort children should there be heavy restrictions put in place.
When abortion gets ‘abolished’ through the criminal (perverted) justice system of the United States, any woman anywhere, pregnant with a child that she does not want, will be able to walk into a doctor’s office, reveal that she is pregnant but that she (deceitfully) feels that she may be having a miscarriage, and the doctor will offer her his miscarriage services for a fee equal to, say, the cost of your average abortion today. He will lead her into a room where she has ‘doctor-patient confidentiality’ and he will examine her, and determine that her instincts were correct, and will abort her child under the ruse that it was already dead. She will be billed for ‘miscarriage management’. This example will repeat itself over and over as a demonic Underground Railroad from Hell.
There will be no way to prosecute this. No way to detect it. The only people who will be actually punished by anti-abortion laws will be innocent mothers who do find themselves miscarrying a child they loved and cherished, unnecessarily scrutinized and interrogated as suspects to a murder they did not commit. This is already happening. There are false convictions.
What if the Roe v. Wade ruling remains as the opinion of the land and does not actually get overturned like everybody seems to expect? The rat race of pretend political efficacy remains a free-for-all where ambitious, idolatrous groups will fiscally and morally bankrupt themselves in seeking to pass legislation and literally rule over their neighbor. They will continue to pray to the false gods of human civil government and pagan kingdoms; those Benefactors who exercise authority. They will continue to supplicate to them to end abortion, which is something that the human rulers have a conflict of interest to keep around. These idolaters will continue to strengthen their own socialist nets around them as they mistake motion for action and chase after the illusion of progress until they get burned out, broken, and replaced. They will only decry abortion as murder with their lips and define abortion as healthcare with their legislation. This promise of political efficacy is the strategy of Satan.
It is not necessary to express the practical details of what it is like to be rats trapped in a political maze that has only ever empty promises of cheese. It is not necessary to write lengthy blogs about real world examples of the self-defeating pragmatism inherent in political pursuit. But so many people do not take seriously the injunction to seek the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, but instead imagine that they can serve two masters of two kingdoms; calling themselves Christians, but taking Christ’s name in vain while they act like obedient statists and reform the very ‘world‘ that Christ said his kingdom was ‘not of’.
Abortion is abolished in the literal kingdom of God. We have written about it extensively. Those who claim to be Christians need to learn to stop living by the sword that civil magistrates bear, and need to learn to pick up their cross and follow Christ so that he will give them new hearts and a love for the Law of God, as well as a hatred for the legalistic laws of men. God’s rule is a civil one, separate and distinct, in competition to the rule of human magistrates. God’s burden is light, where the weightier matters of justice and mercy can be practiced without the endless toil of navigating the legal systems of human bureaucracies. Free states choose abortion, friend. Instead of choosing free states and their wicked authority, choose rather the Kingdom of God, and all these things that you seek will be added unto you.