Does movie ROE v. WADE get the facts right?


The Workings of the United States Supreme Court in Deciding Roe v. Wade

Family Members of Supreme Court Justices

MOVIE CLAIM:

At the time the Supreme Court was hearing and deciding on Roe v. Wade, family members of some Supreme Court justices were volunteering for Planned Parenthood, the abortion provider and advocate for full legalization of abortion, or pushing to legalize abortion.

FACTS:

Sarah Weddington, one of the attorneys representing “Jane Roe,” wrote in her book, A Question of Choice, that her side “heard that [Justice] Stewart’s wife was a Planned Parenthood volunteer; we hoped that was a good omen.”

Sally Blackmun, the daughter of Justice Blackmun, revealed in an interview with WomensENews.org, that her father canvassed his family. “It was a case that he asked his daughters’ and wife’s opinion about.” Around this period, Sally was in the midst of divorcing her first husband whom she had married six years earlier upon learning she was pregnant, according to the website.

Justice Blackmun told Sally when the Roe v. Wadedecision would be announced so she could attend the Court session. She described it this way: “We didn’t know how he was going to come down on it. And I was very pleased with the decision and the fact that it gave women that right of choice” she told WomensEnews.org. “Dad always felt that it was the right thing to do and the necessary thing to do toward the full emancipation of women in this country. So we certainly were in favor of what he did.”

In 2000, Ms. Blackmun joined the board of the Planned Parenthood of Greater Orlando, leading a $3 million campaign to build a new facility in Central Florida. In 2004, a former chairperson of the board, Rita Lowndes, said, “Our local chapter is filling a huge need. Sally sees it as a way to honor her father’s legacy.”

Sally Blackmun’s recounting of the period leading up to the Roe decision contradicts claims made previously by her father. According to Woodward and Armstrong in The Brethren, Justice Blackmun “presumed that his three daughters felt that early abortions should be allowed. He claimed to be unaware of his wife Dottie’s position. But she told one of his clerks who favored lifting the restrictions that she was doing everything she could to encourage her husband in that direction. ‘You and I are working on the same thing,’ she said.  ‘Me at home and you at work.’”

Margaret Sanger’s Views of African-Americans

MOVIE CLAIM:

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is shown speaking at a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan with a burning cross nearby, and making racist statements.

FACTS:

The Planned Parenthood released an 8-page paper in October 2016 entitled, Opposition Claims about Margaret Sanger, which acknowledged Ms. Sanger’s bigotry, and confirmed that she spoke at this KKK meeting. Nonetheless the organization tried to rationalize her conduct: “[I]t is true that Margaret Sanger made a speech on birth control to a women’s auxiliary branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, in 1926. Sanger’s passion to spread and mainstream birth control led her to speak to any group interested in learning how to plan their reproduction.”

This same paper also praised Sanger’s “many visionary accomplishments as a social reformer” and sought to contextualize her support for the eugenics movement.

In July 2020, as reported by CNN and numerous other media outlets, Planned Parenthood of Greater New York announced it would remove Margaret Sanger’s name from its health center in Manhattan.

Karen Seltzer, the chairperson of the chapter’s board, said, “The removal of Margaret Sanger’s name from our building is both a necessary and overdue step to reckon with our legacy and acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s contributions to historical reproductive harm within communities of color… Margaret Sanger’s concerns and advocacy for reproductive health have been clearly documented, but so too has her racist legacy” (emphasis added).

The Fundraiser at the Playboy Mansion

MOVIE CLAIM:

A brief scene is shown at the home of Hugh Hefner (the “Playboy Mansion”), the founder and longtime editor-in-chief of Playboy magazine, which portrays a fundraising event for the abortion legalization effort.

FACTS:

Playboy magazine in the 1960’s was the flagship publication of the pornography industry that exploits young women and inflicts psychological damage. Writer Mitchell Sutherland noted that Hefner was an advocate and fundraiser for abortion. In 1965, the magazine came out for abortion legalization. That same year, Hefner created the Playboy Foundation that has since donated to numerous organizations advocating for abortion, including the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the “Clergy Consultation Service” that connected women to abortion providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union’s “Women’s Rights Project.”

Abortion activist and author, Suzanne Staggenborg, in her book, The Pro-Choice Movement: Organizations and Activism in the Abortion Conflict, writes that the Playboy Foundation contributed various resources, including grants and “use of the Playboy Mansion in Chicago for fundraisers.” She continues, “Although many women’s movement organizations have refused to accept Playboy money, NARAL and its affiliates took from the start a pragmatic attitude toward accepting support from the Playboy Foundation.”

Another of many examples of the pornography industry’s funding abortion groups was written by journalist Elizabeth Moore in the November 1979 edition of All About Issues, which mentioned a fundraiser held on October 20, 1979 for NARAL at the Chicago Playboy Mansion. Hefner’s daughter,Christie, hosted the event, which was co-sponsored by television personality, Phil Donohue.

MOVIE CLAIM:

Betty Friedan is shown holding the position that abortion rights should not be a priority for the women’s movement that she was leading as founder and the first president of the National Organization for Women (NOW). She also is portrayed as looking askance that men were leading the abortion rights effort.

FACTS:

Betty Friedan’s famous best-selling book,The Feminine Mystique, makes no mention of abortion in its first edition, published in 1963. Though an advocate for legalizing abortion, she was concerned the issue would split the women’s movement that was fighting against sex discrimination in the workplace and in higher education, and for equal pay, among other issues.

At a National Abortion Rights Action League conference held on October 13, 1989, Ms. Friedan said that it is “not that abortion is a great thing; it’s an uneasy question.”

Ms. Friedan went on to recount her involvement in the early efforts to legalize abortion. As founding president of NOW in 1966, she was persuaded at the time that abortion was “too controversial to take on” and that “it might split this burgeoning women’s movement.” She said the men who were leading efforts to legalize abortion, including Lawrence Lader and “doctors” (i.e., she omitted mention of Dr.Bernard Nathanson), “got a sense somehow that the

 women’s movement might make everything different… they kept nagging at me to do something.” But, Friedan said, “It was clear that NOW wasn’t going to in those first years.”

Ms. Friedan recalled the founding of NARAL in 1969, that the attendees at its first convention in Chicago were mostly men, and that the conference was focused more on their interests until she intervened. She said abortion was not about “the right of doctors to be able to make some money off it without going to jail.”

MOVIE CLAIM:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Lawrence Lader, on a trip to the Caribbean island of St. Croix, discussed strategy to target the Catholic Church and use fabricated statistics on abortion.

FACTS:

Dr. Nathanson’s 1979 book, Aborting America, and Lader’s 1974 book, Abortion 2: Making the Revolution, confirm they took working vacations to St Croix for strategy sessions, which also was reported by writer Joe Klein in New York magazine

(Jan. 7, 1985). Also, in Dr. Nathanson’s 1983 book, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality, he wrote of the “Catholic strategy” developed by Lader and NARAL, the executive committee on which sat he and Lader. The strategy was “carefully crafted bigotry,” Nathanson wrote, and capsulized in a NARAL statement issued in May 12, 1972, which he described as “venomous” toward the Catholic Church, in particular the “Catholic hierarchy.” Since the Churchwould vigorously oppose abortion, Nathanson wrote, they set out to “use anti-Catholicism as a political instrument, and for the manipulation of Catholics themselves by splitting them and setting themselves against each other … The more vigorously the Church opposed, the stronger the appeal of the anti-Catholic line became to the liberal media, [and] to the northeastern political establishment.”

Dr. Nathanson also writes about their abortion data deceptions : “Knowing that if a true poll were taken we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls,” in one instance saying that 60 percent of Americans favored abortion.

Lader and Nathanson also lied about the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. Although the actual figure was about 98,000, Nathanson said, “The figure we gave to the media repeatedly (and the figure in Lader’s book) was one million.” They also lied about the number of women dying each year from illegal abortions. While the real number averaged about 250, the number they fed to the media was up to 10,000. The false narrative was spread by a willing news media and never questioned, according to Dr. Nathanson.

MOVIE CLAIM:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s change of mind on abortion and subsequent religious conversion

FACTS:

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, portrayed in the film by its producer, Nick Loeb, has written extensively on his life’s journey as an abortion legalization activist, abortion doctor, his change of mind and heart on the abortion issue, and his subsequent religious conversion.

In 1984, Dr. Nathanson narrated the documentary film, Silent Scream, in which he showed what occurs during an abortion and described that a living person is in every pregnant mother’s womb. “This is the silent scream of a child threatened imminently with extinction,” Dr. Nathanson said.

In his memoir, The Hand of God, published in 1996 shortly after his conversion to Catholicism, Dr. Nathanson described the powerful impact of the ultrasound machine, “Abortion is a blind procedure. The doctor does not see what he is doing… [I] was shaken to the very roots of my soul by what I saw,” upon viewing the procedure. Significantly, his change from pro-abortion to pro-life was an empirical experience, sparked by ultrasound technology. His religious conversion came nearly two decades later.

Dr. Nathanson also described his conversion to Catholicism, which included observing pro-life demonstrators praying:  I began to entertain seriously the notion of God–a god who problematically had led me through the proverbial circles of Hell, only to show me the way to redemption and mercy through His grace…Someone had died for my sins and my evil two millennia ago.” Dr. Nathanson was baptized into the Catholic Church on December 8, 1996 at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City.

MOVIE CLAIM:

Norma McCorvey was lied to and exploited by her attorneys, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey.

FACTS:

Norma McCorvey changed her views on abortion and became a pro-life activist in the 1990’s until her death in 2017, despite claims to the contrary by some pro-abortion activists.

In 1994, in an interview with New York Times, Ms. McCorvey said, “Sarah [Weddington] sat right across the table from me at Columbo’s pizza parlor, and I didn’t know [then] that she had had an abortion herself. When I told her then how desperately I needed one, she could have told me where to go for it. But she wouldn’t because she needed me to be pregnant for her case. I set Sarah Weddington up on a pedestal like a rose petal. But when it came to my turn, well, Sarah saw these cuts on my wrists, my swollen eyes from crying, the miserable person sitting across from her, and she knew she had a patsy. She knew I wouldn’t go outside of the realm of her and Linda [Coffey]. I was too scared. It was one of the most hideous times of my life.”

In 1998, Ms. McCorvey appeared before the U.S. Senate in opposition to abortion where she described her exploitation by her attorneys during the Roe v. Wade litigation, “Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffey needed an extreme case to make their client look pitiable.”

MOVIE CLAIM:

Dr. Mildred Jefferson mentions that the producers of the TV series, Maude, were paid by activists $10,000 for an episode favorable to abortion.

FACTS:

The organization, Zero Population Growth (ZPG), co-founded in 1968 by Stanford University Professor Paul Ehrlich, author of the book, The Population Bomb, was a leading advocacy organization for abortion. It remains so under its current name, Population Connection. In 1972, ZPG announced it would award a $10,000 prize for a television comedy show to infuse the message of population control. Prof. Ehrlich at the time predicted global food shortages and mass starvation by the late 1970s due to population growth (his predictions proved spectacularly wrong).

Norman Lear, one of the producers of Maude, decided to have “Maude,” the show’s lead character, become unexpectedly pregnant and have an abortion. “Maude’s” daughter in the show first raised the idea of abortion, and was portrayed as strongly in favor.

The two-part episode entitled, “Maude’s dilemma,” aired November 14 and 21, 1972. The show won the prize from ZPG. The episode was highly controversial. When the rerun appeared in August 1973, after the Roe v. Wade decision, the CBS network received more than 17,000 protest letters. The rerun had not a single corporate commercial sponsor and 20 percent of CBS affiliates refused to air, according to Lewis Beale, writing in the Chicago Tribune.

MOVIE CLAIM:

Numerous Rabbis and Protestant clergy are shown promoting abortion and enabling illegal abortions.

FACTS:

An organization called the Clergy Consultation Service began in New York City in May 1967 to refer pregnant women to illegal  abortion providers, or to legal practioners overseas. The organization was initiallycomprised of 21 ministers.

By 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was decided by the Supreme Court, the group expanded to 40 states and comprised more than 1,400 clergy and rabbis. As noted above, the group was a recipient of philanthropic support from the Playboy Foundation. The National Association to Repeal Abortion Laws, NARAL’s original name, had numerous rabbis and clergy on its board of directors, as shown by the minutes of its Executive Committee in June 1970.

In January 1970, after an eight-month investigation by the Oakland County, Michigan prosecutor’s office of an international system of abortion referrals, an arrest warrant was issued for Rabbi Max Ticktin of Chicago. Prosecutor Thomas Plunkett said the referrals involved “many clergymen and doctors around the nation,” as reported by the National Catholic Reporter. Rabbi Ticktin was a member of the local Clergy Consultation Service, which was organized locally by Rev. E. Spencer Parsons, the dean of the Rockefeller Memorial Chapel at the University of Chicago. Rev. Parsons said at the time that the Chicago chapter was comprised of 24 Protestant clergy and six rabbis.

April 6, 2021

Office of Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Gillibrand,

I noticed that you signed a 2017 letter strongly supporting the filibuster. 
Why are you thinking about abandoning that view now?

Does your change of view have anything to do with Biden now being in office?


Democrats distance themselves from previous pro-filibuster stance, citing GOP obstruction

More than half of current Senate Democrats and VP Harris signed 2017 letter supporting filibuster when GOP was in control

Tyler Olson

By Tyler Olson | Fox News

As progressives push hard for Democrats to eliminate the legislative filibuster after gaining control of the Senate, House and the presidency, many Democratic senators are distancing themselves from a letter they signed in 2017 backing the procedure.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Chris Coons, D-Del., led a letter in 2017 that asked Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to preserve the legislative filibuster. As it’s existed for decades, the filibuster requires 60 votes in order to end debate on a bill and proceed to a final vote.

“We are writing to urge you to support our efforts to preserve existing rules, practices, and traditions” on the filibuster, the letter said.

Besides Collins and Coons, 59 other senators joined on the letter. Of that group, 27 Democratic signatories still hold federal elected office. Twenty-six still hold their Senate seats, and Vice President Harris assumed her new job on Jan. 20, vacating her former California Senate seat.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., speaks as the Senate Judiciary Committee hears from legal experts on the final day of the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 15, 2020. Coons has softened his support for the legislative filibuster in recent years after leading an effort to protect it in 2017. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But now, the momentum among Senate Democrats is for either full abolition of the filibuster or significantly weakening it. President Biden endorsed the latter idea Tuesday, announcing his support for a “talking filibuster.”

KAMALA HARRIS SUPPORTS CHANGE TO FILIBUSTER IN SENATE TO LIMIT MINORITY PARTY POWER

“I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days,” Biden told ABC. “You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

The legislative filibuster has been a 60-vote threshold for what is called a “cloture vote” — or a vote to end debate on a bill — meaning that any 41 senators could prevent a bill from getting to a final vote. If there are not 60 votes, the bill cannot proceed.

The “talking filibuster” — as it was most recently seriously articulated by Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., in 2012 — would allow 41 senators to prevent a final vote by talking incessantly, around-the-clock, on the Senate floor. But once those senators stop talking, the threshold for a cloture vote is lowered to 51.

Harris’ office confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that she is now aligned with Biden on the filibuster issue. She’d previously taken an even more hostile position to the filibuster, saying she would fully “get rid” of it “to pass a Green New Deal” at a CNN town hall in 2019.

Coons, who led the 2017 letter along with Collins, has also distanced himself from his previous stance.

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP)

Vice President Kamala Harris attends a ceremonial swearing-in for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as President Pro Tempore of the Senate on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021. Harris has changed her stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a letter in 2017 backing it. (Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP) (AP)

BIDEN SUPPORTS CHANGING SENATE FILIBUSTER 

“I’m going to try my hardest, first, to work across the aisle,” he said in September when asked about ending the filibuster. “Then, if, tragically, Republicans don’t change the tune or their behavior at all, I would.”

Fox News reached out to all of the other 26 Democratic signatories of the 2017 letter, and they all either distanced themselves from that position or did not respond to Fox News’ inquiry.

“Less than four years ago, when Donald Trump was President and Mitch McConnell was the Majority Leader, 61 Senators, including more than 25 Democrats, signed their names in opposition to any efforts that would curtail the filibuster,” a GOP aide told Fox News. “Other than the occupant of the White House, and the balance of power in the Senate, what’s changed?”

“I’m interested in getting results for the American people, and I hope we will find common ground to advance key priorities,” Sen. Tim Kaine. D-Va., said in a statement. “If Republicans try to use arcane rules to block us from getting results for the American people, then we’ll have a conversation at that time.”

Added Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va: “I am still hopeful that the Senate can work together in a bipartisan way to address the enormous challenges facing the country. But when it comes to fundamental issues like protecting Americans from draconian efforts attacking their constitutional right to vote, it would be a mistake to take any option off the table.”

“Senator Stabenow understands the urgency of passing important legislation, including voting rights, and thinks it warrants a discussion about the filibuster if Republicans refuse to work across the aisle,” Robyn Bryan, a spokesperson for Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., said.

FILE - In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

FILE – In this Oct. 26, 2018, file photo, Sen.Bob Casey, D-Pa., speaks to reporters in the studio of KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh. Casey has reversed his stance on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter in support of it. (AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)

Representatives for Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., pointed to recent comments he made on MSNBC.

“Yes, absolutely,” Casey said when asked if he would support a “talking filibuster” or something similar. “Major changes to the filibuster for someone like me would not have been on the agenda even a few years ago. But the Senate does not work like it used to.”

MCCONNELL SAYS SENATE WILL BE ‘100-CAR PILEUP’ IF DEMS NUKE FILIBUSTER

“I hope any Democratic senator who’s not currently in support of changing the rules or altering them substantially, I hope they would change their minds,” Casey added.

Representatives for Sen. Angus King, I-Vt., who caucuses with Democrats, meanwhile, references a Bangor Daily News editorial that said King was completely against the filibuster in 2012 but now believes it’s helpful in stopping bad legislation. It said, however, that King is open to “modifications” similar to a talking filibuster.

The senators who did not respond to questions on their 2017 support of the filibuster were Sens. Joe Manchin. D-W.Va.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Martin Heinrich, D-N.M.; Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio; Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.; Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii; Cory Booker, D-N.J.; Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.; Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii; John Tester, D-Mont.; Tom Carper, D-Del.; Maggie Hassan, D-N.H.; Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.; Jack Reed, D-R-I.; Ed Markey, D-Mass.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; and Bob Menendez, D-N.J.

Some of these senators, however, have addressed the filibuster in other recent comments.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Wednesday was asked if she supported changing the filibuster threshold by CNN and said she is still opposed to the idea. “Not at this time,” Feinstein said.

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 30, 2020, during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Hirono has changed her opinion on the legislative filibuster since signing a 2017 letter supporting it. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Sen. Maize Hirono, D-Hawaii, meanwhile said last week she is already for getting rid of the current 60-vote threshold and thinks other Democrats will sign on soon.

“If Mitch McConnell continues to be totally an obstructionist, and he wants to use the 60 votes to stymie everything that President Biden wants to do and that we Democrats want to do that will actually help people,” Hirono said, “then I think the recognition will be among the Democrats that we’re gonna need to.”

The most recent talk about either removing or significantly weakening the filibuster was spurred by comments from Manchin that appeared to indicate he would be open to a talking filibuster. He said filibustering a bill should be more “painful” for a minority.

Manchin appeared to walk back any talk of a talking filibuster on Wednesday, however.

“You know where my position is,” he said. “There’s no little bit of this and a little bit — there’s no little bit here. You either protect the Senate, you protect the institution and you protect democracy or you don’t.”

Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., both committed to supporting the current form of the filibuster earlier this year. Sinema was not in the Senate in 2017.

Senate Minority Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said their comments gave him the reassurance he needed to drop a demand that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., put filibuster protections into the Senate’s organizing resolution.

But with Manchin seeming to flake at least in the eyes of some, other Democrats are beginning to push harder for filibuster changes.

I read this about your views:

Gillibrand wants to erase their views

The illegitimate other side here is the self-described “pro-life” opposition to legalized abortion. And one can only presume, given Gillibrand’s maximalist view, it includes those who would keep abortion legal but also impose restrictions on it. 

Gillibrand added that opposition to abortion should be regarded in the same way we regard racism. In other words, critics of abortion need to be banished from the public square. They need to be treated with all the loathing and disdain we reserve for racial bigots.

Senator I also wanted to talk to you about the pro-abortion view you hold and where it may lead in the future.

Carl Sagan asserted, “A morality that depends on, and changes with, technology is a fragile morality.” I would go one step further. A morality that is based on selfishness will take us further down the road to infanticide. 

Adrian Rogers observed:

Pro-choice is rooted in selfishness. Pro-choice advocates want you to beliece that abortion is really an act of mercy. But the truth is that 97% of the abortions in America are convenience abortions. 

The following fictional letter suggests what could well lie in the logical outcome of a policy of eliminating unwanted people. 

January 22, 2023


Dear Mom: 

Can you believe it is already the year 2023? I’m still writing ’22 on everything! It seems like only yesterday that I was sitting in the first grade and celebrating the change to a new century.

I know we really haven’t chatted since Christmas, Mom, and I’m sorry. Anyway, I have some difficult news to share with you, and I really didn’t want to call and talk face to face.

But before I get to that, let me report that Ted’s had a big promotion, and I should be up for a hefty raise this year if I keep putting in all those crazy hours-you know how I work at it. Yes, we’re still struggling to pay the bills.

Little Timmy’s been okay at Kindergarten, although he complains about going. But then, he wasn’t happy about the day care center either. So what can we do? He’s been a real problem, Mom. He’s a good kid, but quite honestly, he’s an unfair burden on us at this time in our lives.

Ted and I have talked this through, and we have finally made a choice. Plenty of other families have made the same choice and are really better off today.

Our pastor is supportive of our choice. He pointed out the family is a system, and the demands of one member shouldn’t be allowed to ruin the whole. The pastor told us to be prayerful and to consider all the factors as to what is right to make our family work. He says that even though he probably wouldn’t do it himself, the choice really is ours. He was kind enough to refer us to a children’s clinic near here, so at least that part is easy.

Don’t get me wrong, Mom-I’m not an uncaring mother. I do feel sorry for the little guy. I think he heard Ted and me talking about it the other night. I turned and saw him standing at the bottom of the stairs in his PJ’s with his little teddy bear that you gave him under his arm-and his eyes were sort of welled up with tears.

Mom, the way he looked at me just about broke my heart, but I honestly believe this is better for Timmy too. It’s not fair to force him to live in a family that can’t give him the time and attention he deserves.

And please, Mom, don’t give me the kind of grief that grandma gave you over your abortions. It’s the same thing, you know. There’s really no difference.

We’ve told Timmy he’s just going in for a vaccination. Anyway, they say the termination procedure is painless. I guess it’s just as well that you haven’t seen that much of little Timmy lately. Please give my love to Dad. 

Your daughter,

—-

Pure fiction, yes. But I wonder if the time is not coming coming. 

Image result for francis schaeffer

Francis Schaeffer and Adrian Rogers 

Sincerely, 

Everette Hatcher III, 13900 Cottontail Lane, Alexander, AR 72002, ph 501-920-5733 everettehatcher@gmail.com

Related posts:

Open letter to President Obama (Part 201)Tea Party favorite Representative links article “Prescott and Ohanian: Taxes Are Much Higher Than You Think”

December 21, 2012 – 9:47 am

    (Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton FriedmanPresident Obamaspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.2)Tea Party Republican Representative takes on the President concerning fiscal cliff

December 21, 2012 – 9:37 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12.) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Milton FriedmanPresident ObamaRonald Reaganspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 200.1)Tea Party favorite Representative shares link on facebook

December 21, 2012 – 5:10 am

(Emailed to White House on 12-21-12) President Obama c/o The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, I know that you receive 20,000 letters a day and that you actually read 10 of them every day. I really do respect you for trying to get a pulse on what is […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President ObamaRonald Reaganspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Open letter to President Obama (Part 199) Tea Party favorite takes on President

December 20, 2012 – 3:09 pm

  The federal government has a spending problem and Milton Friedman came up with the negative income tax to help poor people get out of the welfare trap. It seems that the government screws up about everything. Then why is President Obama wanting more taxes? _______________ Milton Friedman – The Negative Income Tax Published on […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in President Obamaspending out of controlTaxes | Edit | Comments (0)

Tea Party Heroes Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) have been punished by Boehner

December 6, 2012 – 8:55 am

I was sad to read that the Speaker John Boehner has been involved in punishing tea  party republicans. Actually I have written letters to several of these same tea party heroes telling them that I have emailed Boehner encouraging him to listen to them. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ),Justin Amash (R-MI), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS). have been contacted […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current EventsSpeaker of the House John Boehnerspending out of control | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 10)

November 9, 2012 – 7:47 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 9)

November 9, 2012 – 7:42 am

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 to 2012, it rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

49 posts on Tea Party heroes of mine

November 9, 2012 – 7:33 am

Some of the heroes are Mo Brooks, Martha Roby, Jeff Flake, Trent Franks, Duncan Hunter, Tom Mcclintock, Devin Nunes, Scott Tipton, Bill Posey, Steve Southerland and those others below in the following posts. THEY VOTED AGAINST THE DEBT CEILING INCREASE IN 2011 AND WE NEED THAT TYPE OF LEADERSHIP NOW SINCE PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS BEEN […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party Republicans win and some lose

November 7, 2012 – 8:39 am

I hated to see that Allen West may be on the way out. ABC News reported: Nov 7, 2012 7:20am What Happened to the Tea Party (and the Blue Dogs?) Some of the Republican Party‘s most controversial House members are clinging to narrow leads in races where only a few votes are left to count. […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in Current Events | Edit | Comments (0)

Some Tea Party heroes (Part 8)

November 6, 2012 – 7:59 am

Rep Himes and Rep Schweikert Discuss the Debt and Budget Deal Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute in his article, “Hitting the Ceiling,” National Review Online, March 7, 2012 noted: After all, despite all the sturm und drang about spending cuts as part of last year’s debt-ceiling deal, federal spending not only increased from 2011 […]By Everette Hatcher III | Posted in spending out of controlTaxesEdit | Comments (0)

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: