Silent Scream, the Genocide of the Unborn

Tags

abortion, Genocide, genocide of the unborn, Kermit Gosnell, Lindsey Graham, Nick Searcy, Planned Parenthood, roe-v-wade, the unborn

Unified Patriots by Lady Penguin

In 1962, Rachael Carson published a book, “Silent Spring,” – which was basically a treatise, where Ms Carson contended that the entire ecosystem was adversely affected by the indiscriminate use of pesticides, particularly, DDT. Using “Silent Spring” as a metaphor, her premise was that the adverse environmental effects were so catastrophic that conceivably, some day, spring, when new life begins, would be silent.

It’s likely that few people don’t know the volcanic impact that book had on the social-environmental movement of the 1960’s – but the result was explosive – leading to the banning of DDT, and restricted use of pesticides and chemicals in general. This post isn’t, of course, to debate DDT, but it is to speak of another Silent Spring.

The Silent Spring of the unborn. The cries of babies we’ll never hear.

On Jan. 22, 1973, eleven years, and four months after the world began to worry about Nature’s creatures, the Supreme Court (Jan 22, 1973) issued their decision in “favor” of Roe, from Jane Roe v Henry Wade (Dallas District Attorney). America was now allowed to kill its unborn children.

The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state’s interests in regulating abortions: protecting women’s health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[2] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

The original Roe v Wade ruling has since been expanded by subsequent court rulings which solidified women’s rights to privacy, and a woman’s “right” to abort – even through the third trimester.

It appears that the Supreme Court no longer has a vested interest in “protecting the potentiality of human life,” or even the needs of the State (survival of society)[…]

Continue Reading

 

Hillary: An Unborn Child on His or Her Due Date Has No Constitutional Rights

Tags

abortion, after-birth abortion, fetal rights, Hillary Clinton, Pro-Choice, the unborn

Breitbart News by Pam Key

 

Tuesday on ABC’s “The View” Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reiterated her claim from over the weekend that a child, on its due date, just before delivery has no constitutional rights.

Co-host Paula Faris asked, “I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on ‘Meet the Press,’ you said, quote, ‘The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’ My question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?”

Clinton said, “Under our law that is the case, Paula. I support Roe versus Wade because I think it is an important — an important statement about the importance of a woman making this most difficult decision with consultation by whom she chooses: her doctor, her faith, her family. And under the law and under certainly that decision, that is the way we structure it.”

 

What kind of nation have we morphed into when politicians openly advocate the slaughter of innocent babies in the womb and right until their moment of birth.

At the same time, Clinton never mentions when she considers a baby to have Constitutional rights.

During the first week of January, Cecile Richards on behalf of Planned Parenthood endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. It was the first time that PP publicly endorsed a candidate.

A few days later, Clinton announced her “acceptance” of PP’s endorsement who in return committed $20 million to Clinton’s campaign.