At the March for Life today my son Wilson Hatcher got his picture taken with two of the Duggar sisters.

We saw a lot of the Duggars today at the March for Life in Little on January 20, 2013. Here is an earlier picture of the Duggars.

_________

Big crowd at pro-life march in Little Rock today. I thought it was about 3000 or so people there. (KARK Channel 4 said only hundreds were there but that is a total lie!!!) I enjoyed the poem “Will you sing me a lullabye before I go” by Catherine Walsh and then a list of pro-life lawmakers in attendance was read and it included Allen Kerr, Ann Clemmer, Andrea Lea, Bob Balinger, Nate Bell, Mark Lowery, Andy Davis (not from Hot Springs), Andy Mayberry and David Sanders. Others were recognized such as Jim Magnus, Curtis Coleman, Jay Dickey, Susan Hutchinson and a letter was read from Tom Cotton.

PHOTO BY STATON BREIDENTHAL

Then Paul Greenberg gave the speech that went through his process of supporting Roe versus Wade decision in the early days then later becoming pro-life.

Mr. Greenberg compared the Roe v. Wade decision to the Dred Scott decision today at our pro-life march. Here he did that same in this article below from 1994:

Harry Blackmun, our own Roger Taney

by PAUL GREENBERG, The Houston Chronicle, April 9, 1994. This article is part of no violence period.

INDULGE me in a momentary historical fantasy. Suppose that Roger Brooke Taney had not gone down in American history as the principal author of what is now almost universally acknowledged as the worst decision in the history of American jurisprudence, Dred Scott vs. Sandford in 1857.

Suppose the country had been shaped in the image of Chief Justice Taney’s decision, which decreed that slaves could be carried anywhere in the union, and that Negroes could not be citizens under the Constitution, for they were “”regarded as being of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race … and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. ” These were not persons, according to the high court, but property.

Stay with me, this may take some imagination. Now suppose that, instead of these words exciting contempt and derision, and moral horror, they were thought to represent a bulwark of American rights, a new birth of freedom.

In that case, there might still have been those Americans who did not approve of slavery, and perhaps even demonstrated against it, but suppose they were outnumbered by far? Not by fervent disciples of human slavery, but by the mass of citizens who felt uneasy when the subject came up, and who themselves would never own a slave, but who did not feel they should interfere with another’s right to own one. Such a delicate question, they felt, should be left to individual conscience — not dictated by the state.

And finally, suppose that Roger B. Taney, full of years and honors, were to announce that he would retire at the end of the Supreme Court’s current term. What would some forgettable mediocrity of a president have said on that occasion? Would he have identified himself with the decision in Dred Scott? And would the departing chief justice have been hailed as the conscience of the court? Would the grand old man have explained at one point that, while not in favor of slavery personally, he had acted to protect the rights of others?

Too rich a fantasy?

Not if one listens to what is being said on the retirement of Justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe vs. Wade, the Dred Scott decision of our time. Roe made it clear that the unborn child — fetus, if that term is more comfortable — has no rights that the state is bound to respect.

And like Dred Scott, Roe was handed down in the name of an individual right. Roger Taney’s decision in Dred Scott was based on the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Justice Blackmun based Roe on a vague right of privacy nowhere spelled out in the Constitution but “”broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. ”

Of course Roe does not condemn millions to a lifetime of slavery, but rather to no life at all — or, if one prefers, termination. (Euphemism is the first sign that an advocate feels queasy about what he’s really advocating.) At his press conference with Justice Blackmun this week, President Clinton repeated his support for Roe in his own forgettable way: “”I — you know, of course, that I agree with the decision and I think it’s an important one in a very difficult and complex area of our nation’s life. ”

It might be noted that James Buchanan, the forgettable president in 1857, was all for the decision in Dred Scott, too, exulting that it would make Kansas “”as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina. ” At last the slavery question was resolved and the agitation over it would end — just as Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe was supposed to end any dispute about abortion.

Speaking of his decision in Roe, Justice Blackmun once explained: “”People misunderstand. I am not for abortion. I hope my family never has to face such a decision. ” Roger Taney’s defenders in the more poisonous groves of academe explain that the chief justice wasn’t ruling for slavery, but only interpreting the Constitution. People misunderstood.

By all reports, Mr. Justice Blackmun is a nice man, and a baseball fan to boot. Chief Justice Taney doubtless led an exemplary private life and had his hobbies, too. And both handed down other, better decisions besides the single one that history will indelibly link to their names. Perhaps that is the essence of this fantasy: In a society that has lost its moral bearings, strange and terrible decisions can be made, and can come to seem quite ordinary, even praiseworthy.

Greenberg is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and editorial page editor of the Little Rock, Ark., Democrat-Gazette.

Copyright 1994 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company

_______________

“Will You Sing Me A Lullabye Before I Go?”

Will you sing me a lullabye before I go?
Dear Mom and Dad, I want you to know
My young heart is beating, my eyes fill with tears,
I pray that your love will conquer your fears.
God knit me here, you are my lifeline,
Will you sing to me, sweet Mother of Mine?

If you do not want me, please give me away,
There are loving arms waiting that want me to stay.
You will think of me each day of your life,
And the doctor who tore me from you with his knife.
Why would you want us to suffer this pain?

If I’m lost forever, what would you gain?
My Daddy, Listen, can you hear my screams?
Help Me! I cry for you in my dreams.
A farewell lullabye, please sing to me, Dad,
The pain is so great and I am so sad.
My heart aches to see, to feel and to touch
The Mom and Dad who I love so much.
Will I never run, or sing, or play,
Or hear the kind things that mothers say?

I would love to see Grandmom and play with toys,
And hug my Daddy like most girls and boys.
To money and things my parents are drawn,
But when their arms long to hold me, I will be gone.
The tears of the Angels flood Heaven today
As I join fifty million souls who perished this way.
We are crying our hearts out and trembling with fears,
But ours screams for mercy fall on deaf ears.
Does anyone out there have compassion for me?

When you were sown in her womb, your mom let you be.
I am being tortured in this home that I know,
Will you sing me a lullabye before I go?

A stranger prays and sings on the street
For all the children they never will meet.
Someday in Heaven, I’ll find you to say;
Thank you for praying and singing that day.
As I lay there dying, I saw you weep,
With a sweet lullabye you sang me to sleep.
The Angels will carry me home when I cry
With millions of infants who pray in the sky
For the souls of the parents they yearned to kiss
And never will know the babies they’ll miss.
My Savior awaits my arrival today,
“Vengeance is Mine,” I heard the Lord say.
Your soul, Mom and Dad, you have defiled.
Oh Beg for God’s mercy for killing your child!
The Angels sing lullabyes at Heaven’s door
And play with the Babies, our tears shed no more.

Catherine Walsh

_______________

Ronald Reagan was the greatest pro-life president ever. He appointed Dr. C. Everett Koop to his administration and Dr. Koop was responsible for this outstanding pro-life film below:

Ronald Reagan gave some great pro-life speeches.

____________

Jane Roe” or Roe v Wade is now a prolife Christian. She’s recently done a commercial about it.

Around 1993 my wife Jill and I peacefully walked the streets of Little Rock with  Rev Flip Benham who was working with Operation Rescue at the time. We held pro-life signs up and heard some moving stories those two days that we participated.

We could tell that Rev Benham was a man of prayer. He believed in it and practiced it often. Little did we know what the events of the next couple of years would be.

Roe v Wade case was actually about a lady named Jane Roe, but the lady’s name was actually Norma McCorvey. Wikipedia puts it like this:

In 1995, Norma McCorvey was working at a clinic in Dallas when Operation Rescue moved in next door. She allegedly struck up a friendship over cigarettes with Operation Rescue preacher Flip Benham, who incorporates his Christian belief with his stance against abortion.

Norma McCorvey said that Flip Benham talked to her and was kind to her. She became friends with him, attended church and was baptized. She surprised the world by going on national television to say that she now believed abortion was wrong.

Norma McCorvey had been in a lesbian relationship for years, but she eventually denounced lesbianism as well after her conversion to Christianity. Within a few years of her first book, Norma McCorvey had written a second book, Won By Love: Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, Speaks Out for the Unborn as She Shares Her New Conviction for Life.

___________

A Ronald Reagan radio address from 1975 addresses the topics of abortion and adoption. This comes from a collection of audio commentaries titled “Reagan in His Own Voice.”

I just wanted to share with you one of the finest prolife papers I have ever read, and it is by President Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I have a son named Wilson Daniel Hatcher and he is named after two of the most respected men I have ever read about : Daniel from the Old Testament and Ronald Wilson Reagan. I have studied that book of Daniel for years and have come to respect that author who was a saint who worked in two pagan governments but he never compromised. My favorite record was the album “No Compromise” by Keith Green and on the cover was a picture from the Book of Daniel.

One of the thrills of my life was getting to hear President Reagan speak in the beginning of November of 1984 at the State House Convention Center in Little Rock.  Immediately after that program I was standing outside on Markham with my girlfriend Jill Sawyer (now wife of 25 years) and we were alone on a corner and President was driven by and he waved at us and we waved back.

My former pastor from Memphis, Adrian Rogers, got the opportunity to visit with President Ronald Reagan on several occasions.

Take time to read this below and comment below and let me know what you thought of his words.

June 10, 2004, 10:30 a.m.
Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation
Ronald Reagan’s pro-life tract.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While president, Ronald Reagan penned this article for The Human Life Review, unsolicited. It ran in the Review‘s Spring 1983, issue and is reprinted here with permission.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973 is a good time for us to pause and reflect. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation’s wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a “right” so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

As an act of “raw judicial power” (to use Justice White’s biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority inRoev. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court’s decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead,Roe v. Wadehas become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.

Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. The English poet, John Donne, wrote: “. . . any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life — the unborn — without diminishing the value of all human life. We saw tragic proof of this truism last year when the Indiana courts allowed the starvation death of “Baby Doe” in Bloomington because the child had Down’s Syndrome.

Many of our fellow citizens grieve over the loss of life that has followed Roe v. Wade. Margaret Heckler, soon after being nominated to head the largest department of our government, Health and Human Services, told an audience that she believed abortion to be the greatest moral crisis facing our country today. And the revered Mother Teresa, who works in the streets of Calcutta ministering to dying people in her world-famous mission of mercy, has said that “the greatest misery of our time is the generalized abortion of children.”

Over the first two years of my Administration I have closely followed and assisted efforts in Congress to reverse the tide of abortion — efforts of Congressmen, Senators and citizens responding to an urgent moral crisis. Regrettably, I have also seen the massive efforts of those who, under the banner of “freedom of choice,” have so far blocked every effort to reverse nationwide abortion-on-demand.

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

What, then, is the real issue? I have often said that when we talk about abortion, we are talking about two lives — the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child. Why else do we call a pregnant woman a mother? I have also said that anyone who doesn’t feel sure whether we are talking about a second human life should clearly give life the benefit of the doubt. If you don’t know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn.

________

Related posts: