To Lose It All

You can reach so high

Make the boundless sky

Your total claim, your destiny

But when all you grasp is gone

And you’re no longer holding on

To the castles in the air

You will wake up to see

It was never about the win

Because the beginning and the end

Is really all the same 

At the Cross

But after the fight of your life

To demand all your rights

What was it worth if your 

Life is totally lost?

Jesus died to cover every weakness, every sin.

Jesus died to let mercy triumph…

It’s only in surrender

That true JUSTICE wins.

I wrote this after hearing about Kavanaugh not being accepted to teach at Harvard. What incredible lessons we are learning about success this hour. Honestly, our calling in life is greater than a position. I find that people who are vying for the top like all the Harvard students who are persecuting Kavanaugh are going to eventually see an error to their ways. The fight to win rights is always a loss. We are just human and our greatest rights were given by Jesus. Without Him, what kinds of rights would be really have? Our civil society and fight for justice looks very odd these days. It doesn’t look like justice at all. Not when sinners are tearing apart sinners and having no mercy. I’m not sure what people are thinking they can prove. Who among is with a pure slate? If we go around accusing, devouring, and setting people up for failure, then we will reap the devastation of what happens when everyone is considered a loser by society. Maybe that is the lesson we should all learn, though. Without Jesus, we are all losers of truth, grace, mercy, and real life. I’d rather lose my life at the Cross for Christ than have the world affirm me. Praying for Kavanaugh. #nobodyhastherighttotearapartsomeonslife

Truth Always Wins

My heart is really sad for what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh. I believe he will be our next Supreme court justice. He will attain this with scars. So many times when we choose to serve others, we go through sacrifice and pain. The world has this dark way of needing the taste of blood. It’s a sickness at the core. Satan hates people. He hates truth. He makes things look true that are not true. Sometimes it takes years to unravel a knot he creates.

I know this because I went through my own false charges when I was a teacher at a high school—false charges about telling students about Jesus. It’s a sad, sad truth, really, but I never told students about how to get saved, or about their need for a savior, or that somehow Jesus would save them from their sins, I simply just lived my life. It’s a sad truth for all who know my heart for evangelism and Jesus, but I never shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a single class or held an alter call asking if any of those kids wanted to be saved. Anyone who has known me since junior high would know that that is my calling, to do just that, as my friends got saved in public school because I told them about Jesus. But, I didn’t do that in my classes. I knew it would be wrong. So, I just lived it. God wouldn’t even let me wear a cross. He told me not to. The one time I did because I wanted to, it offended a student. I took the cross off. And, in a letter, asking him for forgiveness for offending him, I gave him my necklace. God told me to.

So, when it came down to it, those who wanted to see me hurt, chose to twist things until it looked like somehow I was breaking a rule—that we are not to tell kids about Jesus in public school. Funny, because it felt more like I wasn’t allowed to be a Christian in a public school. It was the students who attacked my faith. Not me telling them how to get saved. I just lived my life, my saved life, and in the end, somehow it convicted them.

That’s the thing about truth…It will last forever. Truth will last forever. But, evil and lies, they last only until truth is discovered. The downside is that sometimes that takes years and so much damage gets done. But, I love how God’s mercy still always wins.

I can’t imagine what Judge Kavanaugh and his family are going through. But, I know that humanity is dark, and without Jesus Christ, there is no hope. Judge Kavanaugh will become our next supreme court justice, and he will continue to be fair and gracious. Why? Because he said he loves God. God has this way of strengthening those He calls to carry on—as if nothing has ever even happened, with a heart of forgiveness, walking in humility with understanding that although human kind is dark, the God of our hearts is bigger than that, and for those of us who choose to abide in Him and walk in His truth, we overcome all that darkness to get the job done, to fulfill our calling, to reach this dark generation—to be the one, who will answer to the call, to stand, to take His light into a darkened world.

I get it. God always wins. I believe God allowed this in Judge Kavanaugh’s life just because He always wins. Alway, all the way Home.

Proverbs 12:17 When you tell the truth, justice is done, but lies lead to injustice.

 

God Heals. ♡

I refuse to limit God to man’s cultural religion. Leave it to man, and God will no longer be a Healer, just only a Comforter. But, the thing is…He is both. He can still heal today. I refuse to believe that cancer is greater than God. Cancer is a disease. Jesus took the stripes for all diseases, and He knew someday there would be something called cancer. We can’t forget God’s Word. He said to confess our sins and to be healed. He said He would send forth His Word and heal us. He is still our Healer.

Sometimes God calls His children Home. He knows when we need Healing at Home more than we need Healing on earth. But, He should be the One to decide that, not man.

I believe our first recourse must always be surrender and faith when we get sick. Surrender to ask forgiveness and mercy for our sins if we sinned and/or faith to believe God wants to be glorified as Healer through our lives. He IS Healer. We must always make that our default belief. By Jesus’ stripes we are healed.

Friday I was in tears on my way home. My head was throbbing. I put my hand on the base of my neck, and I simply prayed and asked God to heal me. I heard His Spirit tell me that He loved me. I let that wash over me. Although the top right of my head still hurt, the base of my neck had no pain. It was all gone. All gone. I found myself marveling at that, but I should know it’s part of my inheritance as His child. Healing is what the Father does.

I know when people die whom we care for it challenges us to the core. Why does disease seem to have the upper hand? Where is healing? I am here to say that I still believe God heals. He is Healer. He always will be. Never cease praying for the health of those we love. Let God choose where He wants to heal them, in heaven or on earth. But, let’s partner WITH the Holy Spirit and AGREE for others’ complete healing in Jesus Christ. God loves us. ❤

🌿I Am a Slave of Jesus Christ

People don’t like to hear the word slave. It’s a deeply offensive term these days that brings back memories of our painful history in America, a time when our nation used a portion of our humanity for selfish greed and personal gain.
Centuries later we are still fighting about that injustice and abuse.  We are still oozing with pain over it.

We fought a Revolutionary War for all Americans to be free of tyrany, but in our very own backyard there would be evidence questioning what our Founding Fathers actually fought for.  DO we hold these truths to be self-evident that ALL men are created equal?  Obviously, scars still show that wasn’t the case at the time.

Over the years the battle has been fought, and many victories have been won regarding slavery and racial discrimination.

You would think that after President Lincoln’s great Emancipation Proclaimation and the bloody Civil War, our nation would finally realize our great mistake and get it right, that we would finally embrace equality for all humanity.

Yet, it took a civil rights movement and more shedding of blood and legislation to guarantee a right we already have before our Creator.  Segregation. Marches. Civil disobedience.  The assassination of MLK, Jr.  After all this, it’s finally written down under the 14th Amendment in man’s annuls:  all are equal.  All are free.  So, why are we still in 2017 fighting this battle?

Still today our country is fighting over color, race, past mistakes, and our longing for freedom.  And quite frankly, I believe it all comes down to so many people irrespective of skin color, tone, or shade feeling so locked up inside their hearts.

We scorn the word, slave; nevertheless, so many people of all skin tones, are still walking around with heaviness of that hurtful heritage branded on their memories and hearts.  No wonder the fight still feels on.  Some have still not yet been set free.

It’s one thing to be a free on the outside, quite another to be free on the inside.

The truth is, we ALL long to be FREE!!! It’s not a color or race condition, but a human condition.

I wish I could just say I am sorry and cry with those still hurting until the anger finally gives way to honest confessions of grief, fear, incredulous shame—whatever is keeping a soul still chained to yesterday. If only we could muster enough courage to say “Enough!”  Because I do believe that kind of bondage is NOT supposed to stick around even for another generation.

Furthermore, I believe that bondage is found in every shade of humanity because what I am describing now is man’s sinful condition. Being a slave to sin is not about the color of our skin, but the condition of our hearts.

Sometimes life is full of ironies and vanities.

In history, God’s own people were sold as slaves in Egypt for a season. Eventually, they were set free to head toward the promise land.  Notice how future generations who made it to the Promise Land didn’t just constantly fight Egyptians in their hearts and remain in bondage through offense to their past history.  Nor did they expect a validation from what happened in the past.  No, instead, they learned to praise God and thank Him for their deliverance out of bondage by crossing that Red Sea Road of faith into freedom. They were no longer slaves; they were FREE!!!

Right now there is great offense over Confederate statues and names, (you know, those statues that rarely anyone but history nerds pay attention to) because there is a portion of our humanity that still feels the hurt caused by that era. And, one by one stone statues are being chiseled down to heal offenses.

But, earlier this summer, I learned a semi driver died because he hit the crane that was on its way to remove one of those statues in Dallas. Seriously, should a slavery issue from centuries ago still take innocent lives today?  If so, what was the Civil Rights Movement all about?  Didn’t we declare freedom for all?  Didn’t we make it a law of our land?  So, why all this bondage still to the past?  Why all the fighting?

I believe it has everything to do with the condition of our hearts no matter what color we are. No amount of tearing down statues will change any person’s true condition of the soul.

God says in His Word that we are ALL slaves to sin or righteousness. As for me, I choose to be a slave of Jesus Christ, a slave of righteousness.

But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:17‭-‬18 

🌿Judicial Activism in Roe v. Wade and Its Effects on the Nation

Paper submitted on June 28, 2019.

 

Introduction

    In the fall of 1967 a young woman and her boyfriend drove south through Texas to cross the border into Mexico.  Her purpose was to get an illegal abortion. The Texas statute enacted in 1857 and remaining “substantially unchanged to the present time” would not allow a woman to get an abortion unless her health was in danger.  Since the only thing that was potentially in danger that year was her JD degree at the University of Texas Law School in Austin, she did what she thought she had to do to protect her future career. Six years later, at the age of 26, she would find herself standing-poised, eloquent, and articulate- at the highest judicial ground of the land—the Supreme Court.  This was her shining moment. Her name was Sarah Weddington, the young, female lawyer who would represent the appellant in the United States landmark case of Roe v. Wade.

Sarah Weddington was not Jane Roe.  But, by all accounts, she could have been.  The truth is, most don’t know the full story of Roe v. Wade.  In an impromptu survey, I had asked eight people if they knew the name of a different girl, Norma McCorvey.  Interestingly enough, all eight did not know who she was.  They did not know that 25 year old Norma McCorvey was the nationally acclaimed Jane Roe, the young woman searching for a way out of her pregnancy in 1969. Since they did not know her name, they also did not know her story.  Although the abortion case was initiated by McCorvey, by the time the Supreme Court fully tried her case, she was no longer pregnant.  She had delivered her baby. Although these personal reasons could have mooted her case, the classified class-action suit continued on with the appellant counsel Sarah Weddington, perhaps the true Jane Roe of the hour, leading the way at the Supreme Court with her opening remarks on Dec. 13, 1971.

From the start, the Supreme Court took advantage of their opportunity to practice judicial activism in Roe v. Wade.   Perhaps it was the opportunity to move beyond just trying a case for jurisdiction.  Perhaps it was that they only had seven fully appointed judges on the bench at the time of the first argument.  Or perhaps, it was that the majority of the remaining justices among them were liberal, and they were reaching for the opportunity to make a lasting social change in the nation. Whatever their true motives were, these Supreme Court justices in the years of 1971 -1973 creatively tried a case that would end up not only altering the lives of so many women, babies, and families all across our nation, but stretching how justices can interpret and create new rights not directly found in the United States Constitution. Perhaps the greatest qualm against these justices’ actions is that they conducted these trials and wrote their opinions and decisions by using that strong measure of judicial activism that left the republic without a voice in the decision. That is what the heart of this research paper is about.  In the landmark abortion trial of Roe v. Wade, the seeds of judicial activism in the Supreme Court grew until it fully produced a piece of judicial legislation that would not only adversely affect mothers and babies, but the entire nation.

Judicial Activism in Roe v. Wade

Whoever thought that judicial activism only started when Supreme Court justices were currently seated on the bench did not know the domino effect that could occur as a result of one retired judge’s article.  In the fall of 1969 retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark published a law review article advocating legalized abortion.  He had been one of the judges who had helped to strike down the Connecticut contraceptive law in Griswold before he retired.  Now, he had written an article that would be cited by many lawyers and lower court justices, including two Supreme Court colleagues, Justices Douglas and Brennan, who would also favorably influence a third justice with ideas of legalizing abortion. Although Clark’s final conclusion to his random article was that in the end “It is for the legislature to determine the proper balance…,” the damage of his publication had already been completed for these liberal minded justices who wanted an opportunity to try their hand at striking down abortion laws throughout the land.  Manipulative seeds of arguments for abortion rights had been scattered throughout his article, influencing these key members of the judiciary with words that would eventually make their way into the Roe v. Wade decision.

There were only seven justices on the panel when Roe v. Wade first came up for judicial review in the Supreme Court in Dec. 13, 1971. The justices had decided to hear the abortion argument without the two new judges, because at the time they had a majority of four who were favorable toward abortion, and they did not want the chance of losing their liberal advantage.  They were also neither too concerned, nor too prepared for the abortion argument because it was specifically determined that Roe was going to be argued as a jurisdiction case to settle procedural issues between the church and state. As a matter of fact, it had another case even attached with it, Doe v. Bolton which would be tried in the same manner. However, the four liberal justices were eager to legislate from the bench, especially Justice Brennan who submitted his opinion of Eisenstadt v. Baird on that same day of the first arguments.  Quite timely, his opinion would contain the rhetoric needed to tie abortion with the right to privacy as established as precedent in that case.

    To further understand the judicial activism that was happening on the bench during Roe’s trial, we need to consider key concepts covered in Ronald Fisher’s book, The Concept of Judicial Activism.  In the book, Fisher asserts that both scholars and common court observers have a hard time differentiating when the Supreme Court is legislating or interpreting in their court decisions and policies in regards to judicial activism.  He claims that justices are bound by the constraints of the Constitution; otherwise, their “actions” would be dismissed.”  Yet, by citing Professor Mendelson, he shows how some justices seem to have a broader, more liberal view of the Constitution:

The Constitution lives on in a changing world because it grows not only by formal amendment but also by “interpretations”—a process in which the judiciary plays a large, yet by no means an exclusive role.  Lawmaking, then, is an inherent and inevitable part of the judicial process.  Judges must be more than mimics.  Greatness on the bench—or—elsewhere—lies in creativity.

Keeping this in mind with Roe v. Wade, it is apparent then that Justice Brennan was in agreement with Mendelson’s liberal view of “creative” judicial activism and judicial lawmaking.  It is also apparent that he was working within the constraints in his mind of a living Constitution when he wrote his opinion for Eisenstadt v. Baird which held the rhetoric that would later be used in Roe v. Wade.

The majority of the seven had already decided their decision to strike down the state abortion legislation when Chief Justice Burger suggested not only once, but twice that Roe v. Wade should be reargued with a full panel of nine judges who were finally appointed to the bench. The liberal core of four were very upset.  Forsythe writes, “The four liberals were enraged; fearful that a 4-3 ruling might become 5-4 against abortion rights, they immediately circulated statements that they opposed reargument.  Nevertheless, Chief Justice Burger prevailed in getting the case heard by the full panel of nine for a second set of arguments in October of 1972.

    In this line of thought, it is interesting to briefly highlight former Justice Black’s convictions regarding judicial activism in the Supreme Court.  Fisher writes that retired “Justice Black stated that he based his faith in the Supreme Court’s ability to interpret the United States Constitution as a living document on two personal convictions:  (1) his enduring belief in the Bill of Rights, and (2) his belief that there existed ‘absolutes’ in the Constitution of the United States.”  Although Black had retired from the Supreme Court prior to Roe, according to Forsythe, if Black had been involved with the Roe deliberations, there were strong reasons to believe he would have voted against creating a constitutional right to abortion, and he would have been for leaving the abortion issue to the democratic process in the states.  Forsythe’s reasons were because Justice Black not only dissented the decision in Griswold, Roe’s precedent, but he had also rejected Justice Douglas’ idea of the “penumbrae” in the Constitution being used.  As a result, although Black was no longer on the Court, the fact that Forsythe could extrapolate Black’s views into the case of Roe ironically exposes the other justices’ liberal judicial activism.

    Perhaps the strongest voice that exposed the overreach of judicial activism in Roe v. Wade, however, came from Justice Rehnquist, one of the new justices in the full panel of nine who would end up voting dissent in the Roe v. Wade decision. His arguments all revealed how the role of judicial activism in the case went beyond the bounds of the Constitution.  First off, he challenged the Court’s new right of “privacy.”   He declared, “The Court’s sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court’s opinion apparently substitutes for the test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.”  It was apparent that he saw the overreach of the Supreme Court and made it clear that they were misapplying the word “privacy” as the Constitution would originally mean it.  In addition, Rehnquist challenged the “compelling state interest test” by asserting that the Supreme Court judges breaking down pregnancy for the states into three distinct terms, outlining acceptable state regulations for each trimester took “more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  In other words, again, it went beyond the original intent of our Founding Fathers in the Constitution. Additionally, Rehnquist wisely took some time to do careful research into the past histories on abortion legislation to back up his dissent.  As a result, his words further exposed the excessive current judicial overreach in creating a new right:

The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not “so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental…Even today when society’s views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the “right” to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.

As a final incitement of truth and revelation, Rehnquist ended his dissent explanations by challenging the Supreme Court by ironically addressing the original Founding Father’s intent for the use of the Fourteenth Amendment in the states:

There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.  The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to this matter….

There are no better words of rebuke for the Supreme Court for their judicial overreach in Roe v. Wade than these that came directly from one of their new colleagues.  Rehnquist’s’ dissent and argument succinctly revealed how the Supreme Court justices had gone over the constraints of the Constitution in their final decision of Roe v. Wade.

National Effects of Judicial Activism in Roe

The adverse effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on Jan. 22, 1973 in Roe v. Wade went beyond just mothers and babies to the whole nation.  When Justice Blackman wrote the final Roe decision, he removed the abortion issue out of the legislatures and placed it in the courts.  With his one decision, Blackmun and the other justices denied the people of the United States the opportunity to debate the abortion issue. Those who were opposed or who were for abortion could not go through the legislative process of contacting their state representatives regarding their views about the issue.  If the republic had been allowed that democratic process, new legislation could have been formed to examine all the various aspects of the abortion issue.  

David Brooks of the New York Times asserts that “If it had remained in the legislatures, we would have seen a series of state-by-state compromises reflecting the views of the centrist majority that’s always existed on this issue.”  As it turns out, prosecutions were pending in many states against abortionists when the decision was published, and there were already 30 states who upheld anti-abortion laws, except in the case of saving the mother’s life. Regardless of this 3/5 majority of the states affirming anti-abortion laws, with the Blackmun decision, the Supreme Court nullified the statutes of all 50 states, requiring that they, instead, implement the new created laws given by the Supreme Court of the land.

As a result of Roe, an assumption rose in the public regarding rights, linking the court to social change.  Scheingold declares that “The assumption is that litigation can evoke a declaration of rights from the courts; that it can further be used to assure the realization of the rights; and, finally that realization is tantamount to meaningful change.  The myth of rights is, in other words, premised on a direct linking of litigation, rights, and remedies with social change” Because they took the fight away from the states and the public, the Supreme Court opened themselves to the precedent of creating new rights, extracting them from somewhere in the penumbrae of the Constitution.  

Some justices like Skelly Wright would argue that in general the role of judicial activism in shaping our country has been “necessary and proper,” especially in areas of law where the political process has been ineffective because politicians have neglected the problems. However, in Roe v. Wade, when the Supreme Court took the debate away from the politicians and democracy, they legislated to “shape a society” where abortion would be acceptable even into the 3rd trimester, unto viability (28 weeks), even though the majority of the states had a hard time even accepting any stage of abortion outside of saving a mother’s life.  If they had left the debate with the legislators and voters, who could work through the issue through the democratic processes of “bargaining, education, persuasion, and voting,” it is possible that during this process statistics would have disclosed that a woman’s health is rarely the reason why women get abortions. After all, according to Bennett’s statistics, from 1972-1991 only seven percent of all abortions actually fell into the category of threatening the mother’s health, whereas nearly 200,000 second-and-third-trimester abortions were committed annually.  Without knowing the statistics at the time, in the end, seven percent, clearly a minority, is what the Supreme Court based their final Roe decision on.  As a result, the majority in the nation was adversely affected, as well.

According to Brooks, there were a number of other political effects that also emanated throughout the land from the Supreme Court decision in Roe.  For one, the political parties polarized.  In addition, both parties developed groups to destroy future judicial nominees that might oppose their side of the abortion fight.  Furthermore, the Senate, once strong in deliberation to achieve consensus, began playing manipulative games to make sure that appointed Supreme Court nominees would reflect their legislative partisan view.  As a result, electing judges was no longer about the judicial wrong and right, but about the judicial left and right. Democrats began using the method of filibustering again and again, while the Republicans began threatening to change the Senate rules.  According to Brooks, present-day America still needs to have this democratic abortion debate because he asserts that it is in eventually overturning Roe v. Wade, that the cycle of political viciousness and counter-viciousness will be destroyed at the root.

According to Judith Blake, a number of abortion-related bills increased significantly to oppose the Roe v. Wade decision that was released in January of 1973.  Right after the Supreme Court decision, 260 bills were introduced and 39 enacted.  In addition, several states enacted statutes to either deny or restrict Medicaid reimbursement for women who had abortions and expected tax dollars to cover the expense of their decision.  

Blake also shared data from national surveys conducted by Gallup and NORC to reveal attitudes of those surveyed in the public prior, during, and after the abortion legislation passed.  In terms of men and women’s attitude toward elective abortions, it was interesting to note the disapproval rating for abortion declined from 85 percent in 1968 to 63 percent in 1974 and 1977.  Nevertheless, Blake indicated that none of the results showed more than 50 percent approving or less than 50 percent disapproving elective abortions.  

In regards to questions about the timing of abortion procedures, results from Blake’s survey clearly showed that the country was in opposition with the Supreme Court here, as well.  Although the Court didn’t feel it necessary at the time to solve the issue of when life began, and eventually, they extended the right to abortion up to 28 weeks, in 1975, 58 percent of the women said life began at conception.  Only 11 percent agreed with the Supreme Court that it would be at viability.  

Also, according to Forsythe, the abortion decision affected the other branches of government, as well. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade bound Congress, the President, and all state and local governments across all 50 states through the Supremacy Clause in Article VI because the supreme law superseded all the state laws of the land. With the passing of the Supreme Court legislation, abortions increased throughout the whole nation, reaching an annual high of 1.6 million in 1992, before declining to 1.2 million in 2006.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, the consequence of Roe v. Wade is that from 1973-2014, the women in America have had 59, 115, 995 abortions.

More specifically, according to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, from the years of 1972 to 1991, there are some other startling facts that resulted from Roe v. Wade. (Because it was difficult to disaggregate the data for just the years starting from 1973, these statistics will include the initial year prior to Roe, as well).  From the statistics, Bennett disclosed that 59% of abortions were committed by women under the age of 24.  Also, about 40 percent of teenage pregnancies (about 400,000 a year) ended in abortion, and the teen number of abortions was one-fourth the total number of abortions that were committed yearly in the United States. Also, he reported that girls who were younger than the age of 15 had an inflating abortion rate by 18 percent between 1980 and 1987.  

In lieu of these results, perhaps having more than seven justices on the panel of the first argument may have helped them consider other possible questions to address in regards to the  abortion decision that would affect the whole nation.  The closest they came to considering other perspectives than just the woman’s health was in the first oral arguments when Jay Floyd submitted in his conclusion that in some instances the consideration should be given to the father of the baby, if he would object abortion. Because of the connection to Doe v. Bolton, it seems likely that the main perspective and age range the justices were considering in regards to abortion legislation at that time were that of adult women, either married or single.  If the thought of teenage abortions would have crossed the justices’ minds, then perhaps their conferences and drafts of opinions may have included some thought regarding parental consent for minors and whether that would even be Constitutional.  However, because the seven justices on the panel denied Texas’ motion to postpone the first argument until Powell and Rehnquist had been sworn in, they were left to hear the first arguments without them on Dec. 13, 1971, and just three days later, a bloc of justices were ready to vote for abortion rights. As a result not much deliberation took place over an issue that would impact the nation for the next 43 years.

Perhaps in their scheming to leave out the other two justices and in moving too quickly through the case, the Supreme Court justices were negligent in doing their research and homework to get all the facts needed to make the most judicious decision. As Forsythe writes, “Roe and Doe began, in the Supreme Court as a serious procedural mistake that left the justices without any factual record to consider the complex historical, legal, medical, and constitutional issues surrounding abortion.” In a landmark class-action suit that would affect the whole nation, it would have been wise to do some research before applying judicial activism from the bench.  After all, according to Bennett’s report, 63 percent of total abortions were committed by women who had never been married, and one of their main supports for the abortion argument was taken from Griswold v. Connecticut, which was about stablishing the Constitutional right of privacy specifically for married couples. Perhaps with some judicial restraint and taking some extra time, the Supreme Court justices may have reconsidered their decision. After all, one of the two who dissented, Justice Rehnquist, did so because he took the time to conduct some research into the opinions that were submitted by the justices to see if the judicial activism happening in the bench stayed within the constraints of the Constitution.  Perhaps if more of the Supreme Court justices had chosen to just interpret the law according to the Constitution, rather than judicially legislate, these adverse effects in our nation could have been constrained.  

Conclusion

    In conclusion, Alexander Hamilton in the 78th Federal paper described judges as the guardians of the Constitution.  He wrote that “the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”  It is evident that he never expected to see the day that judges would legislate from the bench to add rights to the Constitution and change the culture of a nation.  That is exactly what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade.

The Supreme Court justices who used the Roe v. Wade decision to practice judicial activism went beyond the constraints of the United States Constitution to create new rights and laws that in the end have adversely affected the whole country.  By establishing prior precedents in cases like Griswold v Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court created new rights of privacy and abortion that are not found anywhere in the text of the Constitution. The results of this encroachment on state legislative responsibilities and the rights of the people left the country needing to fully debate the abortion issue. There was so much to consider.

The basic qualm against the Supreme Court and their decision is that they usurped the power of deliberation and representation from the democracy by judicially legislating from the bench.  In hindsight, their decision was calculated, because there was a majority on the bench that wanted to strike down the abortion laws.  They based so much of their opinions and decisions on penumbrae and precedents from other cases.  Instead, like Justice Rehnquist, they could have considered the context of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers meant it, and they could have researched some factual evidence.

Although the fact that Norma McCorvey never had an abortion did not matter to the Supreme Court, perhaps, if they knew at the time that Sarah Weddington did have an abortion, it may have mattered.  It may have made them pause, to think.  Why would this woman want so badly to fight for this case?  There may have been a conflict of interest with her presenting the case. In the end, Sarah Weddington may have seemed “successful” in achieving so many of her goals.  After all, she graduated from law school, and she “won” the national landmark Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade.  However, I can’t imagine what the cost has been to her life.  The cost of her “success” to America has been very excessive, indeed.

Bibliography

“Abortion Statistics:  United States Data and Trends.” National Right to Life. Fact sheet. April  

2017.  Accessed on June 26, 2017. http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf.

 

Bennett, William. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures on the State of                     American Society. New York: Touchstone, 1994.

Bickel, Alexander. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics. 2nd ed. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986.

 

Blake, Judith. “The Supreme Court’s Abortion Decisions and Public Opinion in the United States.” Population and Development Review Vol. 3, No. 1/2 (Mar. – Jun., 1977).

 

Brooks, David. “Roe’s Birth, and Death,” The New York Times, April 21, 2005. Accessed June 18, 2017.https://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/opinion/roes-birth-and-death.html?referer.

 

Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech. “Roe v. Wade.” Oyez https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18 (accessed June 26, 2017).

 

Clark, Tom C. Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loy. L.A. L. Rev.1 (1969). Accessed June 18, 2017. http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol2/iss1/1.

 

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

 

Fisher, Ronald E. The Concept of Judicial Activism. California: Banner Books International, 1977.

 

Forsythe Clarke. Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade. New York: Encounter Books, 2013.

 

Garrow, David J. “She Put the v in Roe v. Wade.” The New York Times. September 27, 1992. Accessed June 26, 2017.  http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/27/books/she-put-the-v-in-roe-v-wade.html.

Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

Kernell, Samuel and Steven S. Smith.  Principles and Practice of American Politics:  Classic and Contemporary Readings, 6th ed. Washington:  CQ Press, 2016.

 

Reich, Charles. “Mr. Justice Black and the Living Constitution,” Harvard Law Review 76 (February 1963): 673.

 

Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

 

Scheingold, Stuart A., The Politics of Rights:  Lawyers, Public Policy and Political Change. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1974.

 

Wright, J. Skelly.  “The Role of the Supreme Court in a Democratic Society—Judicial Activism or Restraint,” Cornell Law Review 55 (November 1968): 27-28.

 

Vincent, S. James. “Unwanted Pregnancy and the Unmerited Row over ‘Roe v. Wade,’” Journal of the Indian Law Institute 32, no. 2 (1990): 246-58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43953183.

Love Is Not Jealous

​Jealousy in a human heart withholds love because it presumes that adding their supply will somehow bless that other person MORE than they are blessed, and somehow it will be to their loss. So, instead, they admire from the shadows and greedily keep kindness and love locked away , so it will not compound blessings upon blessings on the subject of their jealousy. Their misapplied admiration with such a lie only feeds their heart’s empty longing to ALSO BE THUS BLESSED.

Anyone withholding love from another doesn’t know the true gift of Love.
Love unlocks God’s blessings and favor.  Not only on the one you choose to love, but also on yourself.
The reason is simple.
You can’t give true love away until you first have it.   You will know you truly have True Love when the desire is to BLESS others, even if it costs you.
Anyone jealous is just really merely in deficit of real, true Love.  Going to God’s supply will change that hungry heart forever!!!!!!! ❤
PS btw the person someone might be jealous of may be totally going through challenges in life that nobody is aware of, and God is pouring out His strong measures of love, mercy, and grace because they need it.   Let us take the cue to Love.  At ALL times!!!!!!!  Love is NOT jealous. 1 Corinthians 13.

The Martyr Is a Witness

To be a martyr is to be a witness.

Stephen, the faithful waiter on widows, full of the Holy Spirit, performing miracles in the Name of Jesus Christ, was the first martyr for Jesus Christ. It’s amazing when we think about it. He was simply doing an ordinary job, but God’s power on Him was so evident that signs and wonders broke out, drawing attention, not unto him, but unto God.

Stephen ended up getting stoned for speaking the Truth when they questioned him. He stood firm and shared Jesus to a generation of people who literally ended up covering their ears and screaming at him. But, it wasn’t at him. What could Stephen really have to say that would be so powerful, so convicting in and of himself? Absolutely nothing. It was God whom they were closing their hearts and ears to. In their mass hysteria of delusion and hard-heartedness, they stoned a God-honoring man, a man who had the heart of serving, a man who had been called to wait on widows, a group of “the least of these.”

So, when it came down to it…Stephen was a witness for Jesus Christ. His life was a testimony of God’s amazing power and Truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what about us? Are we willing to stand up for the name of Jesus Christ in all areas of our lives, to be a witness for Him?

 

The bottom line is that it WILL end up costing everything we have to follow Jesus. That is why He tells us from the very start that if we are to follow Him that we have to deny ourselves and pick up our cross and follow Him. He’s revealing up front that it’s costing our very lives to follow Him. But, He has given us the great exchange; He now lives inside of us, so He enables us to follow hard after Him in Spirit and Truth.

Today’s Christianity makes it look to easy and too cool to be in the kingdom. To have Jesus and our very desires, too—that is the marketing pitch in many churches today. And, I specifically use those words because it’s a business they are running, rather than the Kingdom of Jesus Christ they are growing. It’s going to be a sad day when people in churches are going to get hungry for the true and living God, and they are going to find that it was the blind leading the blind, and all are lost.

 

 

 

 

My prayer is that God will raise up shepherds after His own heart. Those like Stephen who are living to lay down their lives rather than deny Jesus Christ. Those like Stephen who are willing to serve in an ordinary way to bring glory to our extraordinary God. Those like Stephen who will be vessles willing to pour out supernatural wisdom, healing, and miracles to testify to the awesomeness and greatness of our God.

 

I am convinced that all of us who are desiring to live Godly lives for the sake of Jesus Christ and not ourselves are going to go through some new and profound testings in this day and age. Testings that will cost us as we stand in the Name of Jesus Christ. For some it may be relationships. Others, jobs. Others, even lives. But, there will be such testings. And, when they come, it will be allowed by our Lord into our lives for one very great purpose—TO TESTIFY FOR JESUS CHRIST. What an honor and privilege. No matter what the cost, giving Him our very all, our very lives is worth it all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, run the good race. Stand firm. And, minister before Him in His presence. He will strengthen you and make you bold for such a time as this for the sake of His Awesome and Holy Name


Saul, who would later be changed to Paul and who would make one of the greatest impacts in building the body of Christ, saw first-hand Stephen’s witness:

And when the blood of Your martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by consenting to his death, and guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.  Acts 22:20