🌿Loss:  My Dad Went Home

Tomorrow we will bury my dad’s ashes in the ground.  The guns will fire their shots honoring my dad’s military years of service.  Those really were some of his honorable days. His most honorable day to me, however, was this past April when he repented of his sins and asked Jesus to take his whole life and in exchange give him all of His.  My dad asked Jesus to fill him with the Holy Spirit.  I didn’t know then what I know now. God allowed me to make a drive from Texas to Illinois all in one night, so I could prepare my daddy to meet Jesus two months later. I promise I didn’t know. I was looking forward to him someday walking me down the aisle….

He saved my life when he came back to South Korea when I was a baby.  Maybe someday I can share the whole story, but for now, I know my daddy was God’s instrument of protection for me… and my mom. He loved her. He wrote her letters every day for a whole year. He sent money for my baby milk. Apparently, I loved drinking it so much. My mom still talks about it.

I was in Alexandria, VA when I found out my dad was sick with stage four cancer at the start of June.  I had just talked to the nurse 10 minutes before, thinking all he had was pneumonia like he had in April when I visted.  He was a smoker. Pneumonia happened often. She said he was sleeping. I had asked her to scribble a note to him that I had called and that I loved him.

I didn’t know ten minutes later my brother would call to tell me the unthinkable. I honestly couldn’t process it when he did. My brain, heart, and spirit rejected the notion of it all for a few more days. After all, the doctor had not told me anything when I had just called.

After the news that night in Alexandria, VA, I headed toward Virginia Beach. I had to at least see my school, Regent University. Afterall, that is why I had driven to the East Coast for the summer.  The truth is, I was waiting for God to release me to go back home to see my dad. He was keeping me steady and quiet, though.  As I waited and prayed for dad’s healing, I finished a paper, felt peace and HOPE.
I was going to drive up toward Maine this summer, spend some days in New York and Boston along the way.  I had planned to see the lighthouses. However, it all changed in that moment in Alexandria.

Looking back, I understand more fully why I kept seeing signs for HOPE on my way to VA.  At first, I thought it was because a guy I had prayed about marrying had just married someone else that summer.  But, I was glad for him, and I knew in the end, he wasn’t God’s Promise for me. So, I didn’t think HOPE was for that.

I had also gone through a hail storm, with hail pelting through my makeshift, plastic window, and I had gone through my door not closing.  I thought maybe the semi that had Romans 15:13 about HOPE was for the car issues I was having.  Now I know better.

Through that hail storm, I found my ability to cry out to Jesus.  The minute I did, the storm literally ceased. I had never experienced that before.  I was standing outside of my car with a sun windshield visor over my head, getting pelted by nickle to quarter-sized hail. But, at His named cried out honestly from my lips, it all stopped. I knew then God was with me.

The night before I left VA to see my dad, I spoke with my brother on the phone. As we were talking and praying, the only thing I could do was cry out again, “Jesus!” A couple Regent brothers heard me, and they and another friend of theirs surrounded me that night in prayer, intercession, and encouragement. That was HOPE.

Also that week, I met with my amazing Dean of my school and emailed with my current professor. They both encouraged me and prayed for me.  I felt strengthened. There was HOPE.

I can still remember being in shock, writing a 5 page paper for my class at the Regent Law Library. It was a good distraction, afterall. But, the minute I hit submit, I felt the strong nudge to go home and my first wave of grief.  Then, I knew that what I heard could be true.  I still at that time couldn’t say the name of the illness. I knew I had to hurry back.

My dad was in hospice. I can’t write about that experience without being upset, so I will skip it, but eventually, dad went Home.

Since then, I drove back to VA for 3 weeks to write a 15 page Roe v. Wade paper. That paper will always mean souch to me.  You can read it below. Currently, I am back in Illinois.

Loss is strange. Grief comes in waves.  I love my dad, and I will miss him. But, I thank God I will see him someday at Home. I praise God that I have that confidence because of our visit in April.

So, tomorrow I will attend my dad’s memorial and burial, but tonight I just wanted to take a moment to process the past two months.  One thing I am thankful for is that God is a God of HOPE…alway…all the way Home!!!!!!!!

Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 15:13 


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

Paper submitted on June 28, 2019.



    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.  


    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.


“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.

🌼 I Want to Marry a Pure Heart

I want to marry a man with a pure heart…

A pure heart to me does not mean legalism.  In high school I thought I had a pure heart, but what I had was legalism and a sense of self-righteousness.  I may have had all my goody ducks in a row, but I was a mess on the inside.  I wanted a good heart, and I know Christ gave me one, but I had so much of what I thought Christianity meant attached to my relationship with God, instead of the purity of His Word.

So, what I mean by a pure heart is the wholehearted inclination and desire to abide in Christ and to honor His Word.  Not out of legalism, but out of the purity of being able to see rightly who God really is and why His precepts protect our lives.  I want him to understand how boundary lines set by God are for our good, not for us to question and test.

I guess I just want his heart to clearly see and trust God for all his needs.  When I look into his eyes, I want to see Jesus and the person God designed my husband to be.  I want him to know and walk confidently in Christ because he sees Him and knows that Christ sees him.  I want to clearly see them both.  Christ and husband. Clearly. As God intended.


Christine ❤

Blessed are the pure in heart,

for they will see God.

        Matthew 5:8

True Beauty:  Dirty Feet, Messy Hair, and Sparkling Eyes

At the end of the day your feet should be dirty, your hair messy, and your eyes sparkling.

I received those words in my Pink Impact Women’s Conference bag this past weekend.
God has a way of making us feel beautiful even in the trenches.  Sometimes I look at my feet, disappointed that they are not so well kept these days.  Anyone who really knows me knows that I love my feet. Lol. But, when you trek through a wilderness for days, months, years, they get dirty and worn.

And there are so many more days when I look at my messy hair, up in a bun, knowing if I had the right circumstances, I would be curling, styling, and definitely primping my hair.  But, these days it just looks unkempt most of the time.  No time to really take care of it, or if there is time, not always the means.  So, up it goes in the messy bun, as I go on my way into a new day.

Is it worth following Jesus?  Is it worth it when He seems to strip away vanity and every sense of outward beauty we rely on for acceptance and acclaim with man?

Oh, yes. It is.  Because my eyes are sparkling.   My heart is full of Him. The right man will see my heart before he will ever, ever, ever again be so charmed by my hair or feet. Beauty isn’t in the eyes of the beholder, afterall, it is in the heart.  The right man for me will see well because his heart will be beautiful.  Selah.

God bless you!

Christine ❤

Oh, Lord, make us women who are beautiful in heart through our obedience and love for You.  In Jesus’ Name, amen. 

Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.  Honor her for all that her hands have done, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

Proverbs 31:30-31

You Can Be Honest:  Dealing with Fear and Marriage

​Some girls get married because they are afraid. Afraid of being alone. Afraid of never being loved. Afraid of being rejected by society. Afraid of becoming an old spinster, sitting in a rocking chair, surrounded by a thousand cats.  Haha. Yeah, fear can be ridiculous.

And, then, some girls don’t get married because they are afraid.  Afraid of losing their freedom. Afraid of being controlled by someone who will hurt them. Afraid of losing their relationship with God. Afraid of choosing the wrong man. Afraid of being abused. Afraid of being barefoot and pregnant with no identity and surrounded by loneliness in the midst of collected needy bodies.  Yeah, fear can be ridiculous.

I have been in both of these camps. 

In my 20’s I stayed in a relationship I was never meant to even begin because I was afraid of being alone and having nobody love me.

Then in recent years, I moved to the other camp without realizing it. Until yesterday.  

With all my talk about preparing for marriage, I hadn’t dealt with the actual fear of getting married.  Not until yesterday when the Holy Spirit unveiled it to me in worship.  As I unpackaged it, I saw fear of losing freedom, control, and identity at the root.  I now know why, and I can deal with it.  God is so gentle, too, to work with me on uprooting these lies with His truth. Because fear is a lie.  God never created any of His daughters to live in either camp.  

He has a different camp for His princesses. I now choose to abide with Him there in His Truth.  Let me tell you about that…

He is Love.  He ordained marriage.  He is the one who draws two into Holy Marriage by His Spirit of unity, when we are surrendered and open to Him, according to His will.  His desire for marriage is a desire that it be a testimony of Jesus Christ’s relationship to His Bride, the church.  Just from that, we can infer that God sees marriage as a beautiful, covenant, lifegiving, strengthening, and loving union.  This is the camp we want to be in when the season of marriage calls us.

I wrote this because I know my sisters needed to hear this.  Don’t be afraid.  But, if you are, you can be honest and tell God.  He will help you to move away from fear to see marriage as God meant for it to be.

Where God’s love is, there is no fear, because God’s perfect love takes away fear. It is punishment that makes a person fear. So love is not made perfect in the person who has fear.

1 John 4:18 ICB

Much love, 

Christine ❤

🌿Did Fed #10 Ironically Set Our Republic Up for Cultural Tyranny Today?

Publius, James Madison, one of our brave, mysterious triumvirate writers in The Federalist, made a great argument in Fed #10 about how a large republic creates a natural checks and balance among the people because diversity keeps one faction from taking over the whole democracy.

His argument to promote ratification of the federal Constitution seemed sound at that time.  However, he, Hamilton, and Jay could never have dreamed of our postmodern era where after industrialization and expansion, we would be moved to someday progressing at warp speed into an internet age we now call globalism.  To be sure, Fed #10 was written to appease minds that tyranny would not have a chance to rule in a large pluralistic culture like America full of multiple factions;[1] however, Madison did not foresee this internet age in America.

Madison never suspected that one day certain factions in our land would use the media, internet, and judicial system to try to align our culture into a melting pot of secular progressivism, and that slowly the whole republic would start either fighting for or against this pull towards national anarchy, indeed a sort of tyranny led by secularists.

I wouldn’t say it was a failure to get the thirteen colonies to ratify the Federal Constitution of 1787.  What I am implying, however, is that the original Madisonian Theory behind our Constitution no longer seems to apply in our fast-paced, information-driven, digital age where knowledge and battles over ideas happen daily, if not even hourly, and where evidence of cultural tyranny seems to be growing as secularists move to gain control over the republic.

Although Madison assumed our country would be so largely diverse that we would keep each other’s views in check, the reality is that the internet social media age has changed everything.  Ironically, because of our large republic, those who side with angry liberal progressives are growing every day with media, and the movement of the people towards anarchy and anti-government respect is growing, a form of cultural tyranny, neither Hamilton or Madison could have foreseen.


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

🌿Dear America

Dear America,

What would you do if anarchy replaced our liberal democracy?  You see, we are steps away from that happening.
Consider this:

·When law enforcement is undermined and challenged

·When media is allowed to slander the highest office of our land

·When the leaders of our land are constantly called to suspicion, accused, and undermined by the media and people groups

·When people are rioting and fighting every day for their personal gain without considering the common good of all Americans

·When our courts uphold rights for personal activities and PREFERENCES, but put fines on those who follow moral conscience

·When former leaders are allowed to undermine current administration without consequences

THEN, we must be aware because…
Anarchy is influencing our great nation.

 We must wake up and again expect order and decorum.When all chaos abounds, it is we the people who suffer greatly. We need not go there.

Being a teacher I have had years where kids demand their own way.  They end up getting it, but they lose the wisdom and knowledge they would have gained from learning to respect leadership.  Most sadly, their lives are never challenged to receive the good found in sacrifice, respect, and submission to leadership. The kids who fought me never learned the good I had to teach them. 

Leaders are appointed to be our covering. They work hard to take the heat and responsibility of making decisions for the good of all. When we remove their authority from our lives, it is us who suffer because we expose ourselves to truly our own limited scope and bounds—our personal selfishness.

In America, we have a checks and balance system, so our government leaders can be held accountable.  The media was never given the authority to be a part of the check and balance system, to usurp the authority we have elected to give our officials.  However, today, that is exactly what they do.  Do they think they run our country???  They can’t.  They are mere story tellers and entertainers, afterall, not government leaders called on to carry the responsibility of governance. So, we must wisely discern who to believe.

It is time that we leave our leaders to lead us without everyone trying to lead for them.  We live in great times where are voices can be heard through social media.  However, just because we can raise our voice, it doesn’t always mean we are doing it wisely to help others.

Please, let our elected officials lead and serve.  They are trying.  Let us by all means hold them accountable if there is a real problem, but let us not constantly follow the ebb and tide of the noise from the media.  Let us try to listen to our leaders, instead, and trust them.

Peace, America, calm down.  We are still a nation under God.  He is vigilant to promote mercy and justice according to His will. He reigns. Let us then trust His authority and pray.  Let us see what is good, pure, and Holy.  Let us see our nation with His HOPE.
God bless us, America.

In Jesus’ Name, amen. 

 🌿  Life Word

On Youversion I did a cool little devotional series called Life Word.  I think I know what my Life Word is…


All my life God has used me in one way or another to bring truth out of situations, even when some were very uncomfortable and costly.  Truth offers a chance at mercy, at redemption.  I love that in my youth I began a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, Truth. He redeemed me and filled my life with mercy.  Over the years, He has held me accountable in so many ways to honor Truth, even at the expense of being misunderstood, unloved, and even at times, facing great loss.  

The thing about Truth is that it’s tenaciously grounded and steady, regardless of life circumstances.  Truth never changes. Instead, it changes us.  It gives us pure eyes, clean hearts, and Godly resolve. I love Truth and want to champion it. 

It’s not like what we think it is sometimes.  It’s not our truth, so limited by our scope and personal experience.  Truth is beyond us.  Truth is about the character and person of Jesus Christ who sees  every person’s heart, yet submits to God and leaves the judging with Him.  Truth isn’t a tool for condemnation or exposure.  Not in God’s hands.  Truth is always a tool to move us forward toward God’s redemption and mercy.  It’s because Truth sees and knows the whole story. 

I believe our nation needs more Truth.

Singleness in Christ

​When I was in college, I went through a season where I was so afraid of God asking me to be single my whole life.  

I now realize such a question regarding singleness is not something to fear but honestly assess before the Lord.  Does Jesus want me all to Himself?  Is it God’s will for me to never marry?  I never really talked about this, afraid that lifetime singleness might happen if I gave voice to the possibility.  Lol.

But, today I am no longer afraid of WHATEVER God has planned.  Marriage or no marriage, it is no longer my idol or hope.  Jesus is.  I believe if God wants me single my whole life He will keep me and sustain me, and He will use my life for His glory.  I also believe if God wants me to marry, He will provide a man after His heart who will understand the call of marriage and submit to Christ with his whole life and love me with Jesus’ passionate, real, holy, pure love all the days of our lives.  

All I know is that I have incredible peace now.  I truly believe God knows what’s best for me in this area, and I am submitted to His best.  Freedom from fear happens when we really know His love for us.  Nothing on earth compares with God’s Love and His Presence.  He is so real!!!  He fills our lives with His good gifts taylored just for us!!!  Loving Him back is such an honor. ❤

Grad School Season

I got accepted into the MA in Government with a concentration in the Law and Public Policy Program at Regent University in Robertson’s School of Government.  This means lots of research, reading, and writing.  This means I will need lots of processing time.  I hope you will join me on this journey to begin raising my voice for the things that matter in our nation.  I hope you will take time to share what matters to you!  I ordered my books today. I am looking forward to this new season!