The Supreme Masters of Sophistry: Unable to Admit the Fifth Commandment Exists, part one

Fasten your seat belts. This is going to be quite a long ride, shall we say.

All right. Enough the poetry. I am prosaic, not poetic.

The Supreme Masters of Sophistry were at it again on Wednesday, December 1, 2021, as they heard oral arguments in the case of Thomas Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al. After having read the entirety of the official transcript found on the website of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, my only real, substantive comment about this mass of sophistic verbiage is summarized in the title of this commentary: “What is difficult or opaque about Thou Shalt Not Kill?”

The Court’s entire exercise on December 1, 2021, was both completely unnecessary as it was a predictable consequence of a Constitution that admits of no higher authority for its interpretation other than the words of its own text, which are as malleable in the hands of atheistic legal positivists, whether admitted or not (Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an apostate from the Catholic Faith), and just plain legal positivists (Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer) as Sacred Scripture is in the hands of Protestants of any variety and, of course, in the hands of Modernists of any size, shape, or description, including the Jacobin/Bolshevik Modernist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio or his immediate predecessor, the Girondist/Menshevik named Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

As has been noted so many times before on this website as well as in my college teaching career, in the pages of The Wanderer, Christ or Chaos when it was a printed journal from 1996 to 2004, The Remnant, Celebrate Life, and Catholic Family News, no human being, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance has any authority to dispense with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. We are duty bound to observe those binding precepts lest we imperil our eternal salvation and also imperil the common temporal good of our communities and nations, which depend upon the right ordering of souls in accordance therewith.

Men whose souls were rightly formed and informed by the Catholic Faith and who lived in a nation whose laws are rightly ordered in light of First and Last Things as in exist in the nature of things and/or have been revealed to men positively by God in Divine Revelation and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping would never be engaged in arguments about the nonexistent “legitimacy” of willful murder, including the chemical and/or surgical execution of the innocent preborn, or contraception, or sodomy or any other of the myriad number of moral perversities that have arisen precisely as a consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Divine Plan that God instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church. Behold the follies of vain, proud, and arrogant men and women who have come to the forefront because their nations make no room for Christ the King and His true Church, leaving them the playgrounds of the adversary and his minions, who never cease to prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls nor to cease to tickle the itching ears of their fellow men with fables designed to lead them into hell individually and to lead their nations into ruin.

Even though I will concede that there is a possibility that, despite my own firmly-held belief to  the contrary, the decision in Roe v. Wade might be reversed in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, although I think that Chief Justice John Roberts Glover, Jr., will do everything imaginable to keep it in place while upholding the Mississippi statute limiting the surgical execution of most—but not all babies—after the fifteenth week of baby’s development inside the sanctuary his mother’s womb, the premise for such a reversal will be fallacious and thus dangerous. The fallacious premise upon which Roe v. Wade might be reversed as a result of the Supreme Court of the United States of America’s decision in six months in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is that the Constitution is “neutral” or “silent” about abortion, thus making it a matter for the people to “decide,” whether through an electoral plebiscite, the provisions of individual state constitutions or legislation enacted by the elected representatives of the people in state legislatures.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Although I have made an argument on purely constitutional grounds alone that preborn life is protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions that no one shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, meaning that the Constitution is not “neutral” about the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life, the fact remains that no human institution of civil governance has any authority to permit, whether entirely or on a “limited” basis, the surgical execution of the innocent preborn. That is, neither the people nor their elected representatives have any authority to squat about the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment other than determining what penalties should be applied to those who violate them. Period. End of discussion.

Governments founded on secular, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist principles perforce must degenerate over the course of time to the point where sentimentality, irrationality, emotionalism, and utter sophistry pass for legal argumentation and jurisprudential reasoning.

Consider the case of one Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor while she was questioning the counsel for the State of Mississippi, Scott Stewart, who is the Solicitor General (the chief litigator) of the State of Mississippi:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I -- I -- I don't see how it is possible. It's what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown versus Board of Education it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the Court decided, this is what we will follow, that the -- that we won't be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York versus Sullivan -- I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way. There are many political people who believe the Court erred in seeing this as a personal right as -- as opposed to a militia right. If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?) (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

An Interjection Number and Quite Relevant Digression

It is important to remember that Judge Sonia Sotomayor, some might recall, was nominated by then President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, not because she was an expert in constitutional law but because she was dedicated to using the Constitution of the United States of America as a sort of carte blanche for social engineering according to the perceived “needs” of “real” people.

Come with me now into the Christ or Chaos Wayback Machine for proof of this very important point that gets to the heart of Justice Sotomayor’s arrogant, hostile line of questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart. Here is what Caesar Emeritus Obama/Soetoro said on May 26, 2009, when he nominated Judge Sotomayor to replace the completely pro-abortion David H. Souter, who was an appointee of the “pro-life” George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990:

First and foremost is a rigorous intellect -- a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.  Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice; a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

These two qualities are essential, I believe, for anyone who would sit on our nation's highest court.  And yet, these qualities alone are insufficient.  We need something more.  For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."  Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers.  It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.  And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court. (Remarks of Caesar Obamus.) 

Barack Hussein Obama's use of "respect for precedent" has nothing to do with a respect for the words of the Constitution of the United States of America in the things that appertain to Caesar and thus are within the realm of men to determine for themselves, keeping mind, as men must do at all times and in all circumstances, the greater honor and glory of God and the good of souls. No, Obama's invocation of a "respect for precedent" (stare decisis, "let the decision stand") has everything to do with "respect" the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. Although Judge Sotomayor has ruled infrequently in cases involving abortion--and none involving any direct challenges to the core findings held by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), the fact that Obama went out of the way to mention "a respect for precedent" is a very good indication that he considers her to be a "safe pick" to continue David Souter's legacy of blood on the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

It is also interesting to point out that, apart from referring to his own duties under the Constitution and the fact that he had consulted with "constitutional" scholars and that Judge Sotomayor had herself dealt with "constitutional" issues in her years as a Federal judge, Caesar Obamus did not make one single reference to the Constitution itself. Why should he have done so? After all, a document that admits of no higher authority than the text of its own words as the foundation of social order contains the seeds of its own dissolution into irrelevancy as "experience" trumps "logic" and any consideration of an objective morality founded in the precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. This kind of subjectivism is one of the major linkages between the errors of Modernity and those of Modernism, as will be explored yet again, if ever so briefly, at the conclusion of this commentary.

Caesar Obamus's invocation of the penultimate legal positivist, Oliver Wendell Holmes (I always preferred Oliver Wendell Douglas of Green Acres), is quite a telling commentary as Holmes believed the majority had the "right" to enforce its "will" upon the minority by "force" if necessary. He made this abundantly clear in the case of Buck v. Bell, May 2, 1927, in which he wrote a thoroughly utilitarian opinion justifying a compulsory sterilization law that has been passed by the state legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

The judgment finds the facts that have been recited and that Carrie Buck 'is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,' and thereupon makes the order. In view of the general declarations of the Legislature and the specific findings of the Court obviously we cannot say as matter of law that the grounds do not exist, and if they exist they justify the result. We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 , 25 S. Ct. 358, 3 Ann. Cas. 765. Three generations of imbeciles are enough. [274 U.S. 200, 208]   But, it is said, however it might be if this reasoning were applied generally, it fails when it is confined to the small number who are in the institutions named and is not applied to the multitudes outside. It is the usual last resort of constitutional arguments to point out shortcomings of this sort. But the answer is that the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow. Of course so far as the operations enable those who otherwise must be kept confined to be returned to the world, and thus open the asylum to others, the equality aimed at will be more nearly reached. (See the text of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of  Buck v. Bell)

Oliver Wendell Holmes's view of law was indeed based on "experience" and not "logic." He used the discredited, diabolical precepts of utilitarianism (public policy must be based upon the "greatest good" for the "greatest number" even if "traditional" concepts of morality are violated in the process) and the sort of Social Darwinism that was near and dear to the heart of the woman who started the Birth Control League, Margaret Sanger (whose motto was, "More from the fit, less from the unfit; that is the chief issue of birth control"), as the foundation for his decision in the case of Buck v. Bell. Indeed, Holmes's overt rejection of the Natural Law as the foundation of jurisprudence (legal reasoning) and the civil law in favor of legal positivism extended quite explicitly to a rejection of the inviolability of innocent human life under of cover of the civil law, as Holmes made clear in a 1918 essay against the Natural Law in the Harvard Law Review:

The most fundamental of the supposed preexisting rights—the right to life—is sacrificed without a scruple not only in war, but whenever the interest of society, that is, of the predominant power in the community, is thought to demand it. Whether that interest is the interest of mankind in the long run no one can tell, and as, in any event, to those who do not think with Kant and Hegel it is only an interest, the sanctity disappears. I remember a very tender-hearted judge being of opinion that closing a hatch to stop a fire and the destruction of a cargo was justified even if it was known that doing so would stifle a man below. It is idle to illustrate further, because to those who agree with me I am uttering commonplaces and to those who disagree I am ignoring the necessary foundations of thought. The a priori men generally call the dissentients superficial. But I do agree with them in believing that one’s attitude on these matters is closely connected with one’s general attitude toward the universe. Proximately, as has been suggested, it is determined largely by early associations and temperament, coupled with the desire to have an absolute guide. Men to a great extent believe what they want to—although I see in that no basis for a philosophy that tells us what we should want to want.

Now when we come to our attitude toward the universe I do not see any rational ground for demanding the superlative—for being dissatisfied unless we are assured that our truth is cosmic truth, if there is such a thing—that the ultimates of a little creature on this little earth are the last word of the unimaginable whole. If a man sees no reason for believing that significance, consciousness and ideals are more than marks of the finite, that does not justify what has been familiar in French skeptics; getting upon a pedestal and professing to look with haughty scorn upon a world in ruins. The real conclusion is that the part cannot swallow the whole—that our categories are not, or may not be, adequate to formulate what we cannot know. If we believe that we come out of the universe, not it out of us, we must admit that we do not know what we are talking about when we speak of brute matter. We do know that a certain complex of energies can wag its tail and another can make syllogisms. These are among the powers of the unknown, and if, as may be, it has still greater powers that we cannot understand, as Fabre in his studies of instinct would have us believe, studies that gave Bergson one of the strongest strands for his philosophy and enabled Maeterlinck to make us fancy for a moment that we heard a clang from behind phenomena—if this be true, why should we not be content? Why should we employ the energy that is furnished to us by the cosmos to defy it and shake our fist at the sky? It seems to me silly. (Natural Law by Oliver Wendell Holmes)

One of the many paradoxes found in a system where a nation's constitution and civil laws, whether passed at the Federal or state levels, do not explicitly acknowledge the primacy of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as these have been entrusted to the infallible teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is that it spawns competing teams of naturalists and positivists to vie with each other as to whether they will be bound by a "strict constructionist" approach to the interpretation of the words of the United States Constitution or bound only by a general, Rousseauean sense of "experience," referred to quite specifically by the legal positivist Barack Hussein Obama, that was described as follows by the late Father Denis Fahey in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.

The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.

The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.

To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

Thus, good readers, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s concern about the “political” survival of the Supreme Court of the United States of America if the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade is reversed is purely emotional as Sotomayor believes that decisions that reflect her own personal predilections are infallible and thus irreversible whereas those that do not are completely fallible and reversible.

Translation: Yes, to unrestricted baby-killing.

Yes, to sodomy and all its seemingly endless perverse mutations.

Yes, to vaccine mandates.

Yes, to the surveillance state.

Yes, to anything the ever-mercurial false opposite of the naturalist “left” desires in the name of the “people,” a collectivity to which Communists of all varieties have always appealed to justify and then to codify their own totalitarian control.

Those decisions are “principled,” of course, in the mind of Sonia Sotomayor. Those that are not, of course, are “political,” disregarding the fact that, as one of the three branches of the government of the United States of America, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is indeed a political institution, and it is one that has been composed of justices who have long followed election returns.

This  which is why, following the nefarious Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s threat to pack the Court with justices who would uphold his unconstitutional, statist New Deal schemes, the case of National Labor Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel, which upheld the National Labor Relations Act, reversed a decision of only two years previously, Shechter Poultry Corporation v. United States, concerning the power of administrative entities to regulate an ever-broadening definition of what constituted “interstate commerce.” The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America had declared, quite correctly, of course, Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) to be unconstitutional.

Even though Roosevelt’s did not get his court packing legislation through Congress, the threat of doing so produced his desired results in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel.

My word, the Supreme Court of the United States of America was roundly criticized in the 1800s for various decisions. Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson both decried decisions made by the Court under the chief justiceship of John Marshall (1801-1835). Infamously, of course, the decisions of Warren Court (1953-1969) set the stage for the placing matters that are beyond the ability of mere humans to “decide” (contraception, abortion) into judicial footballs that permitted elected members of Congress to hide behind the justices’ black robes. Sonia Sotomayor doth protest a bit too much about “politics.”

One can see that Justice Sotomayor’s line of questioning is based solely on the outcome she desires that is in accord with a “right” invented arbitrarily by seven men and justified in a jurisprudential “throw in everything, including the kitchen sink” approach taken to legal positivism by the late architect of the Supreme Court of the United States of America as a veritable Temple of Doom, Harry Blackmun.

This is how Mississippi Solicitor General, who argued the case for his state’s attorney Lynn Fitch, replied to Justice Sotomayor’s first line of questioning:

MR. STEWART: Justice Sotomayor, I -- I think the concern about appearing political makes it absolutely imperative that the Court reach a decision well grounded in the Constitution, in text, structure, history, and tradition, and that carefully goes through the stare decisis factors that we've laid out. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Brief Interjection Number Three:

With all due respect, Mr. Stewart, how about saying something like this:

Madam Justice, the Court has never had any kind of authority from the true God of Divine Revelation to create a “right” to kill an innocent baby out of whole cloth. God is a majority of One. The Fifth Commandment, whose precepts are written onto the very flesh of human hearts, is clear: Thou shalt not kill.

Obviously, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart did not argue in this manner as it is not possible in a nation that makes no provision for the Social Reign of Christ the King for immutable moral truth that exists in the nature  of things to be defended as the only means to understand the proper role of law and the binding limits upon men and their elected or appointed officials in upholding that which is not subject to human debate, modification, or repeal. It is also quite possibly the case that Scott Stewart would never even think to make such an argument as posited above. Naturalism (or secularism) has such a grip on the minds of even well-meaning men that they wind up arguing on the adversary’s terms, which in this case means accepting the legitimacy of contraception and of “exceptions” to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment.

Back to the colloquy between Justice Sotomayor and Solicitor General Stewart:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Casey did that.

MR. STEWART: No, it didn't, Your Honor, respectfully.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Casey went through every one of them. You think it did it wrong. That's your belief. But Casey did that.

MR. STEWART: Well, Your –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And you haven't added –

MR. STEWART: Sorry, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- much to the discussion in your papers as to the errors that Casey made, other than "I disagree with Casey."

MR. STEWART: Well, Justice Sotomayor, maybe I can -- I can highlight two. Casey gave one paragraph to the workability of Roe. It then adopted the undue burden standard, which is perhaps the most unworkable standard in American law. It gave about three paragraphs, if memory serves, to reliance, which doesn't account for the last 30 years and the changes that have occurred since Casey. It did -- it -- it gave a brief factual view to things that have changed since Roe. Those, of course, are not going to take account of the last 30 years of advancements in medicine, science, all of those things.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: What are the –

JUSTICE ALITO: What is –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- advancements in medicine?

MR. STEWART: I think it's an advancement in -- in knowledge and concern about such things as fetal pain, what we know the child is doing and looks like and is fully human from a very early –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: You know –

MR. STEWART: I'm sorry.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- in -- in regular cases, courts decide whether science fits the Daubert standard. Obviously, the -- under the Daubert standard, the minority of people, a -- a gross minority of doctors who believe fetal pain exists before 24, 25 weeks, it's a huge minority and one not well founded in science at all.

So I don't see how that really adds anything to the discussion.

MR. STEWART: Well –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That a small fringe of doctors believe that pain could be experienced between -- before a cortex is formed.

MR. STEWART: Well, I -- doesn't mean that there's been that much of a difference since Casey.

MR. STEWART: We -- we pointed out as an example, Your Honor, of where Roe and Casey improperly preclude states from taking account for these things. And they should be able to be concerned about the -- about a fact of a -- a -- an unborn life being poked and then recoiling in the way one of us would recoil.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Sir, I -- I don't. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Brief Interjection Number Four:

For heartless, soulless people such as Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor have such darkened, deadened hearts that they must look at an innocent baby in his mother’s womb as a non-person even though each baby has his distinctive DNA from the moment of his conception and, though dependent upon his mother before birth for his nutrition and hydration as he will be until he is old enough to feed himself, is a unique human being made in the very image and likeness of God. Such cold cruelty is foreign to the nature of a woman.

While admitting full well that the ravages of the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin and of one’s Actual Sins can make turn any person, whether a man or a woman, into an unfeeling ideologue who is so fixed in a rejection of the Ten Commandments that he or she has no problem with the systematic destruction of a fellow human being whose only crime is having been conceived as a natural consequence of the gift that God has given to human beings to beget new life, the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity has produced a species of men who hate God and His laws, and who recoil only at the suggestion that there is a God Who commands, a God Who is ready to forgive but also a God Who will be unsparing in His Divine Judgment upon those who deny the humanity of His little ones and who do so with an arrogant abandon. This hatred of God becomes manifest in the way such heartless, soulless monsters deal contemptuously with those who believe that the binding precepts of the Ten Commandments and the Natural Law always apply to all men in all circumstances and that no human law, executive action, or judicial decision is above the Divine Law.

This having been noted, however, the whole matter of fetal pain is completely irrelevant to the simple fact that innocent human life is inviolable from the moment of conception of until death. Period. That well-meaning people such as Scott Stewart believe that it is necessary to discuss fetal pain and embryonic development is but a consequence of trying to argue about moral truth without making reference to the fact that there is a law above human law that binds the consciences of all and is the foundation of a just social order.

Moreover, arguing about fetal pain to someone as heartless and soulless as Sonia Sotomayor means nothing even on a natural level as ideologues will always refer to the demigod of “science” to claim that anyone who asserts the humanity of a preborn baby is on the “fringe” and is thus not a credible source of “science” and thus can be dismissed as “irrelevant” with impunity.

This is nothing new as efforts in 1984 by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who had presided over 70,000 surgical abortions between 1970 and 1973 before quitting for purely scientific reasons after having been one of the leaders of the pro-abortion movement of the 1960s, to graphically illustrate the horror of a first trimester abortion in The Silent Scream did nothing to convince those with hardened hearts that they were wrong. Those with hardened hearts can only rarely be convinced by such evidence barring a miracle of Our Lady’s graces.

Indeed, it was precisely one week after I had debated one of the early leaders of the pro-death movement in the State of New York on March 19, 1985, at Hofstra University that the pro-life group that had organized the debate presented The Silent Scream. A whole variety of pro-aborts attending the presentation and were entirely unmoved, and one of them said “We don’t care” when a thirty year-old pro-life activist and teacher at an independent Catholic high school (Christ the King High School) in Middle Village, Queens, kept asking the question, “Is this human life.” The “we don’t care” answer of thirty-six years, nine mothers ago is precisely the same sentiment as expressed by the heartless, soulless Sonia Sotomayor on December 1, 2021.

Now, I provided the Sonia Sotomayor-Scott Stewart colloquy first before examining what came before it in the Supreme Court of the United States of America’s oral hearings in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as it demonstrates the impossibility of arguing moral truth with one who believes that contingent beings who did not create themselves and whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave are the arbiters of morality and truth.

For his part, Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart, whom “conservative” commentators have praised for his opening remarks, his deft handling of adversarial questions and his closing rebuttal to the arguments, such as they were, advanced by the Solicitor General of the United States of America, Elizabeth Prelogar, a former law clerk to the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.

Stewart had to argue against Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. William Casey’s “undue burden” standard and against the “viability” dicta that was created out of whole cloth by Associate Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe v. Wade while fending off questions about reversing a supposed “super precedent” that the Court’s decision in Roe represents to those who have a vested interest in protecting the surgical killing of the innocent preborn up to and including the day of birth, if not thereafter. Mr. Stewart was very well prepared to argue such matters while pointing out that Roe v. Wade was illogical and not grounded in the Constitution and that Planned Parenthood v. Casey was unworkable.

Once again, however, the fact remains that the necessity of having to argue about whether a state law that only partially restricts the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn at all, no less to discuss “undue burden” and/or “viability” standards, is itself yet another proof of the inability of a written document that makes no reference to any authority other than the words of its own text to serve as any kind of safeguard or bulwark against the triumph of every kind of barbaric debauchery imaginable. To substitute the will of the “people,” expressed through plebiscites or through the actions of their elected representatives, for the law and the will of God is make the will of the adversary a permanent feature of one’s national life and so-called culture.

Having provided a preview of the most egregious line of questioning that took place during oral hearings in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on December 1, 2021, I want to review Scott Stewart’s opening arguments and then the line of questioning that followed thereafter, noting that I will not repeat the Justice Sotomayor’s initial questions for him:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We will hear argument this morning in Case 19-1392, Dobbs versus Jackson Women's Health Organization. General Stewart.

ORAL ARGUMENT OF SCOTT G. STEWART ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS MR. STEWART:

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise. For 50 years, they've kept this Court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life. Consider this case: The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The law includes robust exceptions for a woman's life and health. It leaves months to obtain an abortion. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Five:

Although Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart, one would have expected more precision in his language when referring to the Supreme Court’s not permitting the ending of human life in any other case. This is not so as the Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional even though there was a four year period, 1972-1976, when the Court, in the case of Furman v. Georgia, halted its application on a variety of “equal protection of the law” concerns, which several states answered with new legislation that passed constitutional muster in the case of Gregg v. Georgia, 1976, thus permitting the resumption of its application. Thus, it is inaccurate for Scott Stewart to state the Supreme Court of the United States of America has never permitted of any human life.

What Scott Stewart meant to say is that the Supreme Court of the United States of America had not permitted the ending of any innocent life in any case other than those dealing with the innocent preborn. Even though this is technically true as the Supreme Court has never been asked to decide the constitutionality of the Uniform Determination of Death Act that falsely defined “brain death,” no jurist at any level of government has ever questioned the legitimacy of an act that is based upon a standard that was invented by a committee of “ethicists” at the Harvard Medical College in 1968 to justify in an ex post facto manner the vivisection of Denise Darvall by Dr. Christiaan Barnard in 1967. As readers of this site should know, “brain death” is no kind of death at all. Keep this in mind as the issue “brain death” was mentioned by none other Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her second round of questioning Scott Stewart.

Now, perhaps more substantively and certainly more importantly, Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart’s defense of what he called “robust exceptions for a woman’s life and health” demonstrates yet again that what is considered by most to be “pro-life” legislation is not that at all as there is never any exception to the inviolability of innocent human life.

Scott Stewart is a young man, and thus it is likely that he has no knowledge and hence no understanding of the fact that it is the existence of “exceptions” in most states prior to the 1960s that led advocates of surgical baby-killing such as Bernard Nathanson, Lawrence Lader, and William Baird, among others, to claim that all women should be able to have “access” to “medical care” that was available to the wealthy and the famous who were willing to pay for a doctor to certify they had an “exception” that  justified killing their babies. As I have noted so many times before, do we really expect those who killing innocent human beings in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs to scrupulously observe the limits of “exceptions?” Those who kill with impunity can also lie with impunity. (I will, for the sake of continuity, provide an explanation as to the morally impermissible nature of “exceptions” that I have used previously in numerous articles on this website.)

To boast of “robust exceptions” is to negate any claim of being “pro-life.”

Here is the rest of Mr. Stewart’s opening argument:

Yet, the courts below struck the law down. It didn't matter that the law apply -- that the law applies when an unborn child is undeniably human, when risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Six:

If an unborn child is undeniably human, Mr. Scott, then how is it ever morally permissible to directly kill him in some cases and not others?

Spoiler alert: It isn’t.

Back to Mr. Stewart’s argument:

The lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional no matter what. Roe and Casey's core holding, according to those courts, is that the people can protect an unborn girl's life when she just barely can survive outside the womb but not any earlier when she needs a little more help. That is the world under Roe and Casey.

That is not the world the Constitution promises. The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people.

Roe and Casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed. This Court should overrule Roe and Casey and uphold the state's law. I welcome the Court's questions. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Seven:

Mr. Stewart, there is nothing hard about the Fifth Commandment.

There is nothing hard about understanding that the great gift of human procreation is to be used solely by a man and a woman in a sacramentally valid marriage and left open at all times to the fulfillment of its end, a child, who is meant to give the Most Holy Trinity honor and glory in this life as a member of His Catholic Church and to enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven.

There is nothing “hard” about this at all.

The anti-Incarnational world given us by the Constitution of the United States of America has given no place to Christ the King nor to His true Church and has become, to quote the words of a well-meaning traditionally minded presbyter from the Midwest, “the devil’s playground.”

As noted above, the “people” have nothing to say about moral truth. The “people” must conform their lives to everything contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ revealed exclusively to His Catholic Church, which He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, and has been entrusted with the mission to infallibly teach and to safeguard until the end of time. Christ the King is Sovereign over men and their nations.

Finally, even if Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overturned in six months, the surgical execution of the preborn babies in the State of Mississippi would remain perfectly “legal” prior to the fifteenth week of a child’s development within the sanctuary of his mother’s womb and in the so-called “robust” exceptions that Scott Stewart made such a point of noting were contained in the Mississippi state statute that is being contested in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Moreover, the surgical killing of the innocent preborn would continue without any limitations in states such as New York and California, and almost every other state would permit some kind of “exceptions.” The overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would not stop the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn and it would do nothing to stop the chemical assassination of children by means of contraception, which Mr. Stewart heralded as being more widely available and affordable than when the Casey decision was rendered on June 29, 1992.

It is time at this point to move on to the questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart by the individual justices, starting with the senior most associate justice, Clarence Thomas:

JUSTICE THOMAS: General Stewart, you focus on the right to abortion, but our jurisprudence seems to -- seem to focus on, in Casey, autonomy; in Roe, privacy. Does it make a difference that we focus on privacy or autonomy or more specifically on abortion?

MR. STEWART: I think whichever one of those you're focusing on, Your Honor, particularly if you're focusing on -- on the right to abortion, each of those starts to become a step removed for what's provided in the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution does provide certain -- protect certain aspects of privacy, of autonomy, and the like, but, as this Court said in Glucksberg, going directly from general concepts of autonomy, of privacy, of bodily integrity, to -- to a right is not how we traditionally, this Court traditionally, does due process analysis. So I think it just confirms, whichever one of those you look at, Your Honor, a right to abortion is -- is not grounded in the text, and it's grounded on abstract concepts that this Court has rejected in -- in other contexts as supplying a substantive right.

JUSTICE THOMAS: You say that this is the only constitutional right that involves the taking of a life. What difference does that make in your analysis?

MR. STEWART: Sure, Your Honor. I -- I -- I think it -- it makes a -- a number of differences. One, I -- I'd mention two in particular. One is it -- it really does mark out the unbelievably profound ramifications of this area, which, in many other areas, assisted suicide, a whole host of important areas that are important to dignity, autonomy, freedom, and important to matters of conscience, it -- it marks it out as one of the unique areas where this Court has taken that important issue to the people, and it's -- it's something that implicates life and it just, I think, marks off, Justice Thomas, how problematic and unusual and how much of a break the Court's abortion jurisprudence is from those other cases. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Eight:

Sophistry, which becomes inevitable when men are incapable of even thinking in terms of the simple truth that there are limits which exist in the nature of things that are not subject to debate and do not depend upon the “people,” whether acting individually or collectively, for their binding force and validity.

Also, it should be pointed out that a preborn baby is his own individual and that his mother has an obligation before God to care for him by cooperating with all the graces He sends her to handle whatever difficulties may be entailed.

Then again, supernatural explanations must give way to sophistry when men’s minds are imprisoned in the framework of the written word that itself is the product of rationalist and deistic thought.

Back to the Justice Thomas-Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart colloquy:

JUSTICE THOMAS: If we don't overrule Casey or Roe, do you have a standard that you propose other than the viability standard?

MR. STEWART: It would be, Your Honor, a clarified version of the undue burden standard. I -- I -- I would -- I would emphasize, I -- I think, as Your Honor is alluding to, that no standard other than the rational basis review that applies to all laws will promote an administrable, workable, practicable, consistent jurisprudence that puts matters back with the people. I think anything heightened here is going to be problematic. But I would say, if the Court were not inclined to -- to overrule Casey, the -- the choice would be undue burden standard, untethered from any bright-line viability rule.

JUSTICE THOMAS: Thank you. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Nine:

Undue burden standard?

As I have written before in this commentary and will write again, the only standard is the Fifth Commandment and that is never debatable by mere creatures, no not even in the august surroundings of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Burden?

As I have written before in this commentary and will write again, it is a mother’s duty before God to love the child begotten as the natural fruit of the gift of marital fecundity.

Oh, no.

Why “oh, no”?

I will tell you why “oh, no?

Oh, now, it’s time to deal with Associate Justice Stephen Breyer’s unique brand of legal sophistry:

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, I'd -- I'd like to go to a different topic, back to Casey.

MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BREYER: I assume you've read Casey pretty thoroughly.

MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BREYER: And there are two parts. One is they reaffirm Roe. Put that to the side. The second is an opinion for the Court, not for three people but for the Court, and that second part is about what stare decisis principles should be used to overrule a case like Roe.

And they say Roe is special. What's special about it? They say it's rare. They call it a watershed. Why? Because the country is divided? Because feelings run high? And yet the country, for better or for worse, decided to resolve their differences by this Court laying down a constitutional principle, in this case, women's choice. That's what makes it rare.

That's not what I'm asking about. I want your reaction to what they said follows from that. What the Court said follows from that is that it should be more unwilling to overrule a prior case, far more unwilling we should be, whether that case is right or wrong, than the ordinary case.

And why? Well, they have a lot of words there, but I'll give you about 10 or 20. There will be inevitable efforts to overturn it. Of course, there will. Feelings run high. And it is particularly important to show what we do in overturning a case is grounded in principle and not social pressure, not political pressure.

Only "the most convincing justification can show that a later decision overruling," if that's what we did, "was anything but a surrender to political pressures or new members." And that is an unjustified repudiation of principles on which the Court stakes its authority. And then there are two sentences I'd like to read because they say they really mean this, the -- the Court, not just three: To overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason, to reexamine a watershed decision, would subvert the Court's legitimacy beyond any serious question. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Ten:

Here is “compelling” reason, Justice Breyer: You are violating the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and the Natural Law and, whether or not you realize, you and your other pro-abort jurists on the Court at this time will have to face the Divine Judge Whose Sacred Divinity you do not accept any more than you accept His Law as binding over your sophistic abstractions to protect willful murder:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

This, Justice Breyer, should be your compelling reason.

All right, back to Breyer’s extended soliloquy before poor Scott Stewart had a chance to respond:

JUSTICE BREYER: And the last sentence, after they quote Potter Stewart on the same point, they say overruling unnecessarily and under pressure would lead to condemnation, the Court's loss of confidence in the judiciary, the ability of the Court to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a nation dedicated to the rule of law.

Now that's the opinion of the Court, all right? And it's about stare decisis and how we approach it, and I hope everybody reads this. It's at 505 U.S. 854 to 869. All right. What do you say to that?

MR. STEWART: Sure, Your -- sure Justice Breyer. I -- I would say a couple things. I would say we have very closely gone through the factors that the Casey court itself went through in stare decisis. More than half of our brief is devoted to stare decisis. We now have 30 years in the wake of Casey to see what Casey has done and what it hasn't done.

JUSTICE BREYER: Well, it's caused some bad things and -- in the eyes of some people and some good things in the eyes of some people.

MR. STEWART: Your Honor –

JUSTICE BREYER: All right. All right. Go ahead.

MR. STEWART: I'm -- I'm sorry, Your Honor. What I'd emphasize, Your Honor, is that to the extent that -- that the -- I would not say it was the people that -- that called this Court to end the controversy. The people -- you know, many, many people vocally really just wanted to have the matter returned to them so that they could decide it -- decide it locally, deal with it the way they thought best and at least have a fighting chance to have their view prevail, which was not given to them under Roe and then, as a result, under Casey.

And -- and I'd also emphasize, Your Honor, that on -- on stare decisis, just as I said, the last 30 years, workability, developments in the law, factual developments that states can't account for. I think the workability, the undue burden standard alone, many problems.

On all the metrics that Casey was describing or the vast bulk of them, Casey fails. And I'd also emphasize this as well, Justice Breyer, that Casey was not -- was -- was not a -- a great example of simply letting precedents stand. It -- it recast Roe's reasoning, it overruled two of the Court's most important abortion decisions. It jettisoned the trimester framework of Roe itself and adopted a new standard unknown to other parts of the law.

Those are not the hallmarks of precedent, and they failed under this Court's stare decisis factors.

JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. Can I take it that your answer is, yes, you accept the way the special rule, the rule for the rare watershed, the stare decisis principles for deciding whether to overturn such a case as Roe, you accept that and you think it's met?

MR. STEWART: I would –

JUSTICE BREYER: Is that right?

MR. STEWART: -- I would say yes in part, Your -- Justice Breyer, and here's what I'd emphasize, is that I -- I do think, particularly when Casey looked outward and looked to what it see -- saw as pressure, there were pressure on all sides. As -- as Your Honor noted, this is a hot, difficult issue for everyone. It's -- that's why it belongs to the people. And I think the conclusion the Court drew from that, that it couldn't provide a -- a good enough example, that it would look on principle, those conclusions were, with respect, Justice Breyer, mistaken, and the -- the last 30 years has -- has not seen any calming of that. It's been very different than some of the others -- the Court's other controversial decisions that -- that have seen – (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Eleven:

By way of summary:

First, stare decisis [let the decision stand] has no standing before the Divine Judge, Christ the King.

Second, the inviolability of innocent human life is not a “difficult” issue.

This is where Associate Just Sonia Sotomayor cuts in for the first time. My comments above will be pasted again here in the event that some readers are only perusing this commentary. (Others can simply skip to the questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart by Chief Justice John Glover Roberts):

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: General, does -- was -- I know what it said about viability in Roe, but was viability an issue in the case? I know it wasn't briefed or argued.

MR. STEWART: It -- it was -- it was not issue -- an issue certainly the way it is an issue here, Your Honor. I think it was -- to the extent that the Court had to over -- had to reaffirm Roe, the way to read that as something other than dicta would be to under –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I'm sorry, I don't know whether I said, was it an issue in Roe?

MR. STEWART: Oh, in Roe.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Yeah.

MR. STEWART: I'm sorry, Your Honor. My understanding is no. The law there was -- didn't have a viability tag. That was inserted by –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: In fact, if I remember correctly, and I -- it's an unfortunate source, but it's there -- in his papers, Justice Blackmun said that the viability line was -- actually was dicta. And, presumably, he had some insight on the question.

MR. STEWART: I -- I think -- and I'd -- I'd add, Your Honor, Justice Blackmun in -- in, I think, as well his papers pointed out the arbitrary nature of it and -- and the line-drawing problems –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And then –

MR. STEWART: -- in it too.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: -- and then, in Casey, Casey said that that was the core principle or a central principle in Roe, viability. It said that after tossing out the trimester formula, which many people thought was the core -- core principle. But was viability at issue in Casey?

MR. STEWART: I don't think it was squarely at issue, Your Honor. Again, it's -- it's a little hard not to take the Court at its word when it emphasized that viability -- the -- that viability is -- is the central part of Roe -- Roe's holding and saying that it is reaffirming that, so we kind of take that as it -- as it stands. But the Court has not -- it did not face a law like this certainly, Mr. Chief Justice. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twelve:

Mind numbing sophistry.

Mind boggling casuistry.

Eye-rolling absurdity.

Headache-inducing tedium.

All the legal wrangling over “viability,” “undue burden” and/or the “trimester approach is very much apart from the simple truth to which I must return repeatedly: A human baby is a unique, unrepeatable creature who has come into existence as the natural consequence of marital fecundity. “Thou shalt not kill” prohibits willful murder.

Speaking of willful murder, it is time to hear again from the heartless, soulless Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: May I finish my inquiry?

MR. STEWART: Of course, Justice Sotomayor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Virtually every state defines a brain death as death. Yet, the literature is filled with episodes of people who are completely and utterly brain dead responding to stimuli. There's about 40 percent of dead people who, if you touch their feet, the foot will recoil. There are spontaneous acts by dead brain people. So I don't think that a response to -- by a fetus necessarily proves that there's a sensation of pain or that there's consciousness.

So I go back to my question of, what has changed in science to show that the viability line is not a real line, that a fetus cannot survive? And I think that's what both courts below said, that you had no expert say that there is any viability before 23 to 24 weeks. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Thirteen:

Perhaps the best word to describe Sonia Sotomayor is that she is irreligious. However, she is also a scientific and medical illiterate true believer in junk science.

As any reader of this website (I refuse to use the word “blog”) will understand—and as I noted earlier in this analysis, there is no such thing as “brain death” no matter how many states use that standard and no matter how long (thirty-five years) the United States Uniform Determination of Death Act has gone unchallenged in the courts. The very fact that supposedly “brain dead” people respond to stimuli is that they are, quite in fact, alive, and there are numerous cases, many of which have been cited in my articles and several of which are cited in Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law, of supposedly “brain dead” people regaining consciousness and resuming perfectly normal lives. There are also several cases in which people have awakened while on the operating table prior to their vivisection for the profitable bodily organ market.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor believes that a preborn baby is as “dead” as a human being who has been declared “brain dead” by medical ghouls,” documenting yet again that there is a repulsively heartless person who simply wants to protect the nonexistent “rights” of married couples, fornicators, adulterers and perverts to misuse the gift God has given to human beings to procreate new lives without regard for the inviolable right of a child to be born and to be brought to the baptismal font for his spiritual regeneration by the infusion of the very inner life of the Most Blessed Trinity into his immortal soul.

Let’s face facts: the whole debate about abortion has always been “different” because it involves the wanton misuse of the generative powers for hedonistic purposes alone that either frustrate the end for which these powers have been given to man or, in the case of an “accident,” to dispose of that which is “unwanted.” The easiest way to this is to deny—or at least to be indifferent about—the humanity of the child just as certainly today’s Aztecs in medical smocks must deny the humanity of the “brain dead” people they need to vivisect in the ghoulish trade of harvesting bodily organs.

With this in mind, it is time to proceed to Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart’s reply to Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s initial question in her second round of questioning:

MR. STEWART: And what I'd say -- say is this, Justice Sotomayor, is that the fundamental problem with viability, it's not really something that rests on -- on science so much. It's that viability is not tethered to anything in the Constitution, in history, or tradition. It's a quintessentially legislative line.

A legislature could think that viability makes sense as -- as a place to draw the line, but it's quite reasonable for a legislature to draw the line elsewhere. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Fourteen:

Viability is a false standard.

Undue burden is a false standard.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a false standard.

Constitutional interpretation without making reference to even so much as the Natural Law is a pointless exercise in sophistry, absurdity and rank intellectual dishonesty.

We return now to the great “scientist,” “bioethicist,” and constitutional “scholar” named Sonia Sotomayor:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, there's so much that's not in the Constitution, including the fact that we have the last word. Marbury versus Madison. There is not anything in the Constitution that says that the Court, the Supreme Court, is the last word on what the Constitution means. It was totally novel at that time. And yet, what the Court did was reason from the structure of the Constitution that that's what was intended. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Fifteen:

Factually wrong, Sonia Sotomayor.

The case of Marbury v. Madison did not establish the principle that the Supreme Court was the last word on what the Constitution means.

Congress can overturn Supreme Court decisions involving defects in Congressional law to remedy constitutional concerns and, of course, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, voting individually in their respective chambers, can propose constitutional amendments to be sent to the states for ratification either by three-fourths of the state legislature or three-fourths of specially established state ratifying conventions, whichever shall be specified by Congress.

Marbury v. Madison was not even the first time that the Supreme Court of the United States of America had ever exercised judicial review, which, although explicitly contained in the words of the Constitution itself, was an implied power of the judiciary that Alexander Hamilton had discussed in The Federalist, Number 78. Marbury v. Madison was the first time that the Supreme Court had used judicial review to strike down a provision of Federal law as unconstitutional. The first discussion of the power of judicial review by the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America came in the case of Hayburn’s Case, August 11, 1792, but the first actual application of judicial review, which had been explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist, Number 78, to uphold a Congressional enactment occurred in the case of Hylton v. United States, March 8, 1796, as the Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld a Congressional tax on carriages as constitutional. The use of judicial review in the Hylton case was made as a matter course.

Unlike the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade created “rights” that exist nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey sought to make sense of Roe’s unconstitutionality by devising a “undue burden” standard to determine how far a crime that cries out to Heaven for vengeance can be taken before state legislatures can intervene.

Herewith, therefore, we return to the histrionic, unhinged ideologue Sonia Sotomayor’s soliloquy to Scott Stewart:

And, here, in Casey and in Roe, the Court said there is inherent in our structure that there are certain personal decisions that belong to individuals and the states can't intrude on them. We've recognized them in terms of the religion parents will teach their children. We've recognized it in -- in their ability to educate at home if they choose. They just have to educate them. We have recognized that sense of privacy in people's choices about whether to use contraception or not. We've recognized it in their right to choose who they're going to marry. I fear none of those things are written in the Constitution. They have all, like Marbury versus Madison, been discerned from the structure of the Constitution. Why do we now say that somehow Roe versus Casey is -- Roe and Casey are so unusual that they must be overturned? (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Sixteen:

Sonia Sotomayor just cannot help herself, can she?

While admitting that parents can homeschool their children, she also added that parents “just have to educate them,” meaning that she does not believe that most homeschooling parents are “educating” their children with anything other than religious biases, which is not the same thing in her warped mind as “education.”

Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, June 29, 1992, and Obergefell v. Hodges, June 26, 2015, have nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States of America. They have everything to do with jurists imposing their own ideology as the “final” say on matters not open to human debate in the first place so as to preclude anyone from daring to challenge their “final” and “settled” decisions even they themselves have dared to defy God by lawing down “laws” in defiance of His.

Return with us now to those thrilling days of last week, the Sotomayor-Stewart colloquy rides again:

MR. STEWART: Well, Your -- Justice Sotomayor, I would -- I would emphasize two things. When you're going beyond the Constitution, this Court has looked closely to –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: No, what I'm saying is they didn't go beyond the Constitution.

MR. STEWART: Your Honor, they did not deduce those from the structure of the Constitution. They -- they pointed to the Fourteenth Amendment and -- and reasoned that privacy in Roe, autonomy and similar values in Casey led to a right to abortion. That's not how this Court traditionally does things, including in the vast run of cases that Your Honor ran through. The Court looks to history and tradition. And, here, those decisively reject the proposition that states cannot legislate comprehensively on abortion before, after viability, and all throughout. So it's -- it's history and tradition, Your Honor. And I would also add, Your -- Your Honor, that those -- those decisions, a great many of them, draw -- you know, not just draw from text -- text, history, and tradition, but they draw often clear lines, very workable, have not led to the many negative stare decisis factors that we identify here. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Seventeen:

Nations that make no provision for the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church in all that pertains to the good of souls must wind up arguing about the inarguable and being divided over things that meant to unite men in this life in preparation for the blessedness of life without end in an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise as participants in the victory of Our King, the Paschal Lamb, over the power of sin and eternal death.

The most junior member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, inserted herself in an attempt to give Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart a chance to pledge his obeisance to Griswold and Obergefell just as the fifth ranking justice, Elena Kagan, was about to begin her own line of questioning:

JUSTICE KAGAN: General –

JUSTICE BARRETT:

General, would -- go ahead. Go ahead.

JUSTICE KAGAN: Go ahead, Justice Barrett.

JUSTICE BARRETT: Would a decision in your favor call any of the questions -- any of the cases, sorry, that Justice Sotomayor is identifying into question?

MR. STEWART: No, Your Honor, I -- I think for a couple reasons. First of all, I think the vast run of those cases, and some mentioned from time to time are Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell, these are -- these are cases that draw clear rules: you can't ban contraception, you can't ban intimate romantic relationships between consenting adults, can't ban marriage of people of the same sex. Clear rules that have engendered strong reliance interests and that have not produced negative consequences or all the many other negative stare decisis considerations we pointed out, Your Honor.

Also, I -- I'd add none of them involve the purposeful termination of a human life. So those two -- those two features, stare decisis and termination of a human life, Your Honor, puts all of those safely out of reach if the Court overrules here. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Eighteen:

Shame on Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett for accepting the nonexistent legitimacy of cases that has established “rights” in defiance of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, especially since the Supreme Court’s rationale in support of baby-killing had been established in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that declared a long unused Connecticut statute forbidding the sale of contraceptives to married couples to be unconstitutional.

Just as the widespread acceptance of the contraceptive mentality led to the widespread acceptance of baby-killing-on-demand, so is the case that the Court’s “reasoning” in Griswold led directly to the outcome in Roe. Griswold v. Connecticut, though, was the jurisprudential foundation for them all, however, as the court’s seven justice majority (Chief Justice Earl Warren and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, Tom C. Clark, John Marshall Harlan II, William Brennan—then the court’s lone Catholic justice, Byron White and Arthur Goldberg) “found” a “right to privacy” emanating from alleged “penumbras” in the Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Even Associate Justice Hugo Black, the Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama who became a court liberal on many matters, found that kind of judicial activism too much to stomach, denouncing it very plainly even though he did not like the law, which we know as Catholics is objectively just and good of its nature, in question:

The Court talks about a constitutional 'right of privacy' as though there is some constitutional provision or provisions forbidding any law ever to be passed which might abridge the 'privacy' of individuals. But there is not. There are, of course, guarantees in certain specific constitutional provisions which are designed in part to protect privacy at certain times and places with respect to certain activities. Such, for example, is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' But I think it belittles that Amendment to talk about it as though it protects nothing but 'privacy.' To treat it that way is to give it a niggardly interpretation, not the kind of liberal reading I think any Bill of Rights provision should be given. The average man would very likely not have his feelings soothed any more by having his property seized openly than by having it seized privately and by stealth. He simply wants his property left alone. And a person can be just as much, if not more, irritated, annoyed and injured by an unceremonious public arrest by a policeman as he is by a seizure in the privacy of his office or home.

One of the most effective ways of diluting or expanding a constitutionally guaranteed right is to substitute for the crucial word or words of a constitutional guarantee another word or words, more or less flexible and more or less restricted in meaning. This fact is well illustrated by the use of the term 'right of privacy' as a comprehensive substitute for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against 'unreasonable searches and seizures.' 'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept which can easily be shrunken in meaning but which can also, on the other hand, easily be interpreted as a constitutional ban against many things other than searches and seizures. I have expressed the view many times that First Amendment freedoms, for example, have suffered from a failure of the courts to stick to the simple language of the First Amendment in construing it, instead of invoking multitudes of words substituted for those the Framers used. See, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 293, 84 S.Ct. 710, 733, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (concurring opinion); cases collected in City of El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497, 517, n. 1, 85 S.Ct. 577, 588, 13 L.Ed.2d 446 (dissenting opinion); Black, The Bill of Rights, 35 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 865. For these reasons I get nowhere in this case by talk about a constitutional 'right or privacy' as an emanation from one or more constitutional provisions.[1] I like my privacy as well as the next one, but I am nevertheless compelled to admit that government has a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision. For these reasons I cannot agree with the Court's judgment and the reasons it gives for holding this Connecticut law unconstitutional.. . .

I repeat so as not to be misunderstood that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up and at the same time threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have.[16]

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must with all deference reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and being somewhat old fashioned I must add it is good enough for me. And so, I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause with an 'arbitrary and capricious' or 'shocking to the conscience' formula was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. State of New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937. That formula, based on subjective considerations of 'natural justice,' is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703; Olsen v. State of Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, 61 S.Ct. 862, 85 L.Ed. 1305, and many other opinions.[17] See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74, 25 S.Ct. 539, 551 (Holmes, J., dissenting). (Associate Justice Hugo Black, Dissenting Opinion, Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965.)

The late Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, a Freemason and former member of the Ku Klux Klan in his native Alabama, who had was fellow Freemason Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first appointee to the Supreme Court of the United States of America on August 13, 1937, did not like the Connecticut statute under review in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Indeed, he defended a fellow Klansman who had murdered Father James Coyle in 1921 when he, Black, a thirty-five year-old attorney in private practice. Nonetheless, though, Black understood the principles of just constitutional interpretation, articulating very clearly what would happen if the Court continued to “invent” “rights” that had no foundation in the Constitution of the United States of America whatsoever.

It impossible to oppose surgical abortion unless one also opposes contraception, which is overthrows the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and thus makes the conception of a baby to be considered an “accident” if he is not “planned” or “wanted, and it is thus reprehensible that Justice Barrett sought to temporize Justice Sotomayor’s caricature of Scott Stewart’s arguments by giving him a chance to agree that cases providing constitutional cover for contraception and sodomy were established law beyond question, and shame on Scott Stewart for agreeing with her.

Well, we are nearing the end of that part of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization transcript dealing with the questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart.

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, the second most senior associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, interjected himself for a second round of questioning:

JUSTICE BREYER: Okay. So we -- I'm sorry to interrupt again, but we really might be making progress. I mean, in the part that -- that I read, you know, of Casey –

MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BREYER: -- I think they think go back 150 years, maybe now we can go back 200. You think there have been only two cases which were what they call the watershed and where the special tough overruling rules apply. You want this to be the third, or do you think there were more and, if so, what were they?

MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honor, I -- I -- I think there's quite a bit of difference. I -- I think the question is never is it bad to overrule, period. You know, surely, stare –

JUSTICE BREYER: This is why I'm asking you to think -- think in their terms. There were two they mentioned, you see.

MR. STEWART: But –

JUSTICE BREYER: And they don't want Casey -- they don't want Roe to be the third.

MR. STEWART: And –

JUSTICE BREYER: Now, in your opinion, you just answered Justice Barrett, hey, all these are not rising to that level. Okay.

MR. STEWART: Right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE BREYER: Are there any that do rise to the level in your opinion?

MR. STEWART: I think -- and I -- and I'm not sure that I necessarily agree with the watershed characterization, Your Honor. What I'd say, though, I -- I can't think of another that kind of hits the radar. But -- but I'd emphasize that a problem here is we're -- we're dealing with a right that doesn't have a basis in constitutional text and, again, very much in conflict with those -- with those values, Justice Breyer. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Nineteen:

Once again, stare decisis has no standing in the court of Christ the King when the decisions one believes must stand because they had been decided in the first place are in defiance of the laws of God and thus the temporal good of nations and the eternal good of souls.

Believe it or not, Sonia Sotomayor is back for a third round of questioning:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I'm not sure how your answer makes any sense. All of those other cases -- Griswold, Lawrence, Obergefell -- they all rely on substantive due process. You're saying there's no substantive due process in the Constitution, so they're just as wrong according to your theory.

MR. STEWART: No, Your Honor, we're quite comfortable with Washington versus Glucksberg and how it analyzes substantive due process and it looks to text, history. It looks to history and tradition to discipline the inquiry to make sure –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Well, I mean, in Obergefell, there was no history of -- of -- of same-sex marriage.

MR. STEWART: And I think the Court -- the -- the Court pointed out, look, when we -- when we were facing Loving versus Virginia –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I -- I'm not trying to argue that we should overturn those cases. I just think you're dissimilating when you say that any ruling here wouldn't have an effect on those. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty:

For once Associate Justice Sotomayor was right when she claimed that Scott Stewart’s arguments trying to separate the Court’s decisions on contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut and on “marriage” between persons of the same gender from the decision in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Scott Stewart was being entirely inconsistent and intellectually dishonest as those cases proceed one from the other.

Alas, a constitutional system based on principles of religious indifferentism make it impossible for men to appeal to Truth Himself as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church and must wind up yielding to the basest instincts of man’s lower passions as, absent Sanctifying Grace and the sanctifying offices of Holy Mother Church, a mere human document is powerless against the sway of emotion and sentiment.

It gets a little worse as Sonia Sotomayor played the “religious card” in the next part of her questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart:

MR. STEWART: Respectfully, I -- I -- that's -- that's -- I respectfully –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Do you think no -- that no state is going to think otherwise, that no people in the population aren't going to challenge those cases in Court?

MR. STEWART: I mean, Your -- Your Honor, we'll always have a diversity of views, but I think -- I think –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That's the point.

MR. STEWART: -- I think -- I think that's one –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That -- isn't that the -- isn't –

MR. STEWART: -- of the benefits of our society.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- isn't that the point?

MR. STEWART: That there's – that there's a diversity of views and people can vigorously debate and make –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Exactly.

MR. STEWART: -- decisions for themselves?

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And that's what we're still doing –

MR. STEWART: I think that's a good thing, Your Honor.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- and that's what we're doing under undue burden, but we haven't been doing it on the viability line.

MR. STEWART: And -- and neither one has worked well. The viability line discounts and disregards state interests, and the undue burden standard has all -- all of the problems that we've emphasized.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It's still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that's a religious view, isn't it – (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-one:

The beginning of human life is a matter of biological science, not a matter of religion.

However, one cannot defend the inviolability of human life without at least making reference to the binding precepts of the Natural Law, which were used to condemn Nazi judges and war criminals at the Nuremburg Trials, but even advertences to the Natural Law must fail without appealing to the Divine Judge Who has been, is now, and will forever be a majority of One. It is, however, impossible to argue with the likes of Sonia Sotomayor on secular terms. One must speak truth and plant the seeds for its reception without fear of the consequences. Period.

Sonia Sotomayor has such hostility for religion—and she has in mind specifically Catholicism, of course, continues in her third colloquy with Scott Stewart:

MR. STEWART: Respectfully –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: -- because it assumes that a fetus's life at -- when? You're not drawing -- you're -- when do you suggest we begin that life?

MR. STEWART: Your Honor, I -- aside from –

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Putting it aside from religion.

MR. STEWART: I -- I'll -- I'll try to -- I think there might be more than one question. I'll do my very best, Justice Sotomayor. I -- I think this Court in Gonzales pretty clearly recognized that before viability, we are talking with unborn life with a human organism. And I think the philosophical questions Your Honor mentioned, all those reasons, that they're hard, they've been debated, they're -- they're -- they're important, those are all reasons to return this to the people because the people should get to debate these hard issues, and this Court does not in that kind of a circumstance. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-two:

Once again, these are not “hard” issues.

There is nothing hard, difficult, or opaque about the Fifth Commandment, whose binding precepts must be obeyed, not debated and defied.

Returning now to Sotomayor:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So when does the life of a woman and putting her at risk enter the calculus? Meaning, right now, forcing women who are poor -- and that's 75 percent of the population and much higher percentage of those women in Mississippi who elect abortions before viability -- they are put at a tremendously greater risk of medical complications and ending their life, 14 times greater to give birth to a child full term, than it is to have an abortion before viability. And now the state is saying to these women, we can choose not only to physically complicate your existence, put you at medical risk, make you poorer by the choice because we believe what? That

MR. STEWART: Sure, Your Honor. I -- I think, to -- to answer, I think, the -- the question I think you -- you led with and -- and then I think expanded on but is still on the same issue is as to when does a woman's interest enter, as far as we're concerned, it's there the entire time. Our point is that all of the interests are there the entire time, and Roe and Casey improperly prevent states from taking account and weighing those interests however they think best. We're not saying – (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-three:

No mother has any "choice" to be made between her own life and that of her preborn child. Although the improvements in medical technology have made it possible for expectant mothers with serious maladies to be treated in a manner that will permit a baby to be delivered at the point of viability, whereupon more aggressive treatment of a mother's condition can be undertaken, if possible and advised, it is still nevertheless the case that in those rare circumstances, which certainly do occur now and again, where a mother is faced with the possibility of sacrificing her own life so that her preborn baby can be born. A mother formed in the truths of the Catholic Faith knows that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ meant it when He said the following:

[12] This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. [13] Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15: 12)

A mother who knows the Catholic Faith understands that, as difficult as it can be to those steeped in emotionalism and sentimentality, she can, if she dies in a state of Sanctifying Grace, do more for her child from eternity than she ever could here on the face of this earth. Moreover, those who have died in a state of Sanctifying Grace are more perfectly united to us than they ever were on the face of this earth.

We must think supernaturally at all times. We must think as Catholics at all times no matter the natural pull of human emotions and heartstrings that will certainly affect each of us at various times. We are flesh and blood human beings. We would be heartless creatures if we were not torn in difficult circumstances of facing an earthly separation from our loved ones by means of what is considered to be an "early" death. We must love God's Holy Will first and foremost, praying to His Most Blessed Mother to send us graces to accept His will so that we can obey it as we observe every precept of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Naturalists, of course, do not understand this, which is why almost all of those in public life who say that they are "pro-life" support the direct, intentional taking of innocent human lives in their mothers' wombs under any conditions at all. Such people cannot see the contradiction represented by claiming to be "pro-life" while supporting the direct killing of babies in some instances.

God's law is not a matter of feeling, something that Pope Pius XII pointed out in his November 26, 1951, Address to the Association of Large Families. Consider these very telling words from the early part of this address, begging your pardon that they are from a Google translation of the original text, which is in the Italian language:

If there is another danger that threatens the family, not since yesterday, but long ago, which, however, at present, is growing visibly, it can become fatal [to societies], that is, the attack and the disruption of the fruit of conjugal morality.

We have, in recent years, taken every opportunity to expose the one or the other essential point of the moral law, and more recently to indicate it as a whole, not only by refuting the errors that corrupt it, but also showing in a positive sense, the office the importance, the value for the happiness of the spouses, children and all family, for stability and the greater social good from their homes up to the State and the Church itself.

At the heart of this doctrine is that marriage is an institution at the service of life. In close connection with this principle, we, according to the constant teaching of the Church, have illustrated a argument that it is not only one of the essential foundations of conjugal morality, but also of social morality in general: namely, that the direct attack innocent human life, as a means to an end - in this case the order to save another life - is illegal.

Innocent human life, whatever his condition, is always inviolate from the first instance of its existence and it can never be attacked voluntarily. This is a fundamental right of human beings. A fundamental value is the Christian conception of life must be respected as valid for the life still hidden in the womb against direct abortion and against all innocent human life thereafter. There can be no direct murders of a child before, during and after childbirth. As established may be the legal distinction between these different stages of development life born or unborn, according to the moral law, all direct attacks on inviolable human life are serious and illegal.

This principle applies to the child's life, like that of mother's. Never, under any circumstances, has the Church has taught that the life of child must be preferred to that of the mother. It would be wrong to set the issue with this alternative: either the child's life or that of mother. No, nor the mother's life, nor that of her child, can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. For the one side and the other the need can be only one: to make every effort to save the life of both, mother and child (see Pious XI Encycl. Casti Connubii, 31 dec. 1930, Acta Ap. Sedis vol. 22, p.. 562-563).

It is one of the most beautiful and noble aspirations of medicine trying ever new ways to ensure both their lives. What if, despite all the advances of science, still remain, and will remain in the future, a doctor says that the mother is going to die unless here child is killed in violation of God's commandment: Thou shalt not kill!  We must strive until the last moment to help save the child and the mother without attacking either as we bow before the laws of nature and the dispositions of Divine Providence.

But - one may object - the mother's life, especially of a mother of a numerous family, is incomparably greater than a value that of an unborn child. The application of the theory of balance of values to the matter which now occupies us has already found acceptance in legal discussions. The answer to this nagging objection is not difficult. The inviolability of the life of an innocent person does not depend by its greater or lesser value. For over ten years, the Church has formally condemned the killing of the estimated life as "worthless', and who knows the antecedents that provoked such a sad condemnation, those who can ponder the dire consequences that would be reached, if you want to measure the inviolability of innocent life at its value, you must well appreciate the reasons that led to this arrangement.

Besides, who can judge with certainty which of the two lives is actually more valuable? Who knows which path will follow that child and at what heights it can achieve and arrive at during his life? We compare Here are two sizes, one of whom nothing is known. We would like to cite an example in this regard, which may already known to some of you, but that does not lose some of its evocative value.

It dates back to 1905. There lived a young woman of noble family and even more noble senses, but slender and delicate health. As a teenager, she had been sick with a small apical pleurisy, which appeared healed; when, however, after contracting a happy marriage, she felt a new life blossoming within her, she felt ill and soon there was a special physical pain that dismayed that the two skilled health professionals, who watched  her with loving care. That old scar of the pleurisy had been awakened and, in the view of the doctors, there was no time to lose to save this gentle lady from death. The concluded that it was necessary to proceed without delay to an abortion.

Even the groom agreed. The seriousness of the case was very painful. But when the obstetrician attending to the mother announced their resolution to proceed with an abortion, the mother, with firm emphasis, "Thank you for your pitiful tips, but I can not truncate the life of my child! I can not, I can not! I feel already throbbing in my breast, it has the right to live, it comes from God must know God and to love and enjoy it." The husband asked, begged, pleaded, and she remained inflexible, and calmly awaited the event.

The child was born regularly, but immediately after the health of the mother went downhill. The outbreak spread to the lungs and the decay became progressive. Two months later she went to extremes, and she saw her little girl growing very well one who had grown very healthy. The mother looked at her robust baby and saw his sweet smile, and then she quietly died.

Several years later there was in a religious institute a very young sister, totally dedicated to the care and education of children abandoned, and with eyes bent on charges with a tender motherly love. She loved the tiny sick children and as if she had given them life. She was the daughter of the sacrifice, which now with her big heart has spread much love among the children of the destitute. The heroism of the intrepid mother was not in vain! (See Andrea Majocchi. " Between burning scissors," 1940, p.. 21 et seq.). But we ask: Is Perhaps the Christian sense, indeed even purely human, vanished in this point of no longer being able to understand the sublime sacrifice of the mother and the visible action of divine Providence, which made quell'olocausto born such a great result? (Pope Pius XII, Address to Association of Large Families, November 26, 1951; I used Google Translate to translate this address from the Italian as it is found at AAS Documents, p. 855; you will have to scroll down to page 855, which takes some time, to find the address.)

So much for the “life of the mother” exception in pre-Roe statutes, so much for it in Mississippi HB 1510, and so much for Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s tendentious reasoning in her questioning of Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart.

No woman is “poorer” for having given birth to a child.

Indeed, the world has been poorer by the absence of hundreds of millions of children killed by contraceptives and the over one hundred million children who have been killed by surgical means globally in the past fifty years.

Although Associate Justice Elena Kagan tried to pose a question of Scott Stewart immediately after the third round of questions by her colleague Sonia Sotomayor, she was edged out by the Court’s fifth most senior associate justice, Samuel Alito, who, like Justice Barrett previously, wanted to give Mr. Stewart a chance to present evidence of secular philosophers who were opposed to abortion, a question for which Mr. Stewart was inexcusably prepared to answer:

JUSTICE KAGAN: General –

JUSTICE ALITO: General, are there -- are there secular philosophers and bioethicists who take the position that the rights of personhood begin at conception or at some point other than viability?

MR. STEWART: I -- I believe so. I mean, I think there's a wide array, I mean, of -- of -- of people of kind of all different views and -- and of no faith views who -- who would reasonably have that view, Your Honor. It's -- it's -- it's not tied to a religious view and I don't think, were it otherwise, this Court's jurisprudence would -- on this issue would run right into some of its religious exercise jurisprudence. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-four:

Behold once against the folly of arguing moral truth on secular or naturalistic grounds. It is impossible logically and it is impossible in the America constitutional schema.

Here are the examples that Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart should have given, starting with Hippocrates himself:

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

The Roman playwright Juvenal, who lived in the early Second Century A.D. and was fierce hater of Christians, had this to say about the crime of the murder of innocent preborn children:

So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb. Ancient History Sourcebook: Juvenal: Satire VI 

Even a proto-feminist, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who organized the first "women's rights" conference in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848, referred to abortion as "disgusting and degrading crime," going on to write:

When you consider that women have been treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. (Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873, recorded in Howe's diary at Harvard University Library.)

Yes, it is possible by reason alone to come to recognize that a child, an innocent preborn human being, is the natural fruit of human conjugal relations. It is an accident if one falls down a flight of stairs. It is an accident if the motor vehicle one is driving goes out of control on an icy road. It is not an "accident" if a child is conceived as the result of human conjugal relations. To invade the sanctuary of the womb, therefore, in order to suck out, burn, slice or otherwise destroy a living human being is opposed to the very laws of nature itself. And if the child inside a mother's womb is not alive, why is it necessary to kill it? As to the child's humanity, you see, even secular science has proved that every fertilized embryonic human being has a distinctive DNA of his very own that does not change over the course of his life. All that is added, physically and temporally speaking, is time and nutrition.

As I said to an abortion advocate in a debate at Hofstra University, Hempstead, Long Island, New York, on the Feast of Saint Joseph, March 19, 1985:

"I will quit this debate right now if you can demonstrate to me which one of the cells in your body has a DNA structure different from the moment that you were conceived."

No true, objective biologist can deny the fact that a living, growing human being is created at the moment of fertilization. Ideologues can deny all arguments that can be advanced by means of reason and science, however, which is why arguing against abortion on the grounds of reason alone only takes one so far. Indeed, it is precisely because of naturalism that we have abortion-on-demand and in most other countries in the "developed" world today. Naturalistic arguments are not going to end abortion-on-demand, although the use of scientific facts and basic Natural Law reasoning can be useful as tools to help people to see through some of the illogic of the pro-death arguments. Such arguments are merely "building blocks," if you will, to lead people to accept the simple fact that it is God Himself Who has ordained these immutable facts of nature that do not depend upon human acceptance for their binding force or for their validity.

Well, she waited long enough. Associate Justice Elena Kagan finally got her turn to question Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart and she, while much more respectful than Sonia Sotomayor, expressed her concern about the Supreme Court of the United States of America would listen to the side that yells the loudest, which is not at all what has been happening the past nearly forty-nine years:

JUSTICE KAGAN: General, Justice Breyer started with stare decisis, an important principle in any case, and, here, for the reasons that Casey mentioned, especially so, to prevent people from thinking that this Court is a political institution that will go back and forth depending on what part of the public yells loudest and -- and -- and preventing people from thinking that the Court will go back and forth depending on changes to the Court's membership. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-five:

As noted earlier in this lengthy analysis, the Supreme Court of the United States of America is a political institution. It always has been, and it will ever be thus. It is a political branch of the government of the United States of America composed of fallible human beings, many of whom have definite ideological predilections that they have sought to superimpose over the framework of the Constitution of the United States of America and who brook no opposition to their judicial tyranny.

Justice Kagan is inventing a straw man by claiming that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would mean the side that yells the longest wins as bread-and-butter issues, sadly, are most important to most voters and it has not been the case as recently as June v. Medical Services that the “pro-life” side, such as it has ever been with the complex set of organizations that are completely opposed to all abortions without exception and others that are content to “live” with some abortions in some cases, have been prevailing in decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Back now to Justice Elena Kagan:

And what strikes me about this case -- and -- and -- and you come here very honestly saying, you know, we want you to discard the entire setup and then, even if you don't do that, we want you to discard the viability line, which you've acknowledged again today Casey says is the -- the heart, the central principle of Roe.

And so usually there has to be a justification, a strong justification in a case like this beyond the fact that you think the case is wrong. And I guess what strikes me when I look at this case is that, you know, not much has changed since Roe and Casey, that people think it's right or wrong based on the things that they have always thought it was right and wrong for. So the -- the -- the -- the -- the rationale behind those cases has something to do with the autonomy and the freedom and the dignity of women to pursue their lives as they wish, to protect their bodily integrity, to make the decisions that are most fundamental to the course of their lives. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-six:

Human beings have no autonomy to kill other human beings.

A preborn child belongs within his mother’s womb as a result of the free will choice made by his mother to use, whether licitly within the context of a valid marriage, or illicitly, the generative powers, and she has no “choice” thereafter but to surround her child with love and care. A woman debases her dignity when she conducts herself in a sinful manner, and though Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ stands ready to offer His absolution to her through the ministration of a true priest acting in His Person in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, He has granted no one, man or woman, the authority to dispense with His eternal laws so that they can engage in carnal pleasure sinfully.

All right. I return now to Justice Kagan:

And -- and always, in those cases, there was an understanding that there were important interests on the other side in protecting life or protecting the potential for life, whether people saw it one way or the other way, and that there was a difficult question here and a balance to be made. And, I mean, it strikes me that people -- some people think those decisions made the right balance and some people thought they made the wrong balance, but, in the end, we are in the same exact place as we were then, except that we're not because there's been 50 years of water under the bridge, 50 years of decisions saying that this is part of our law, that this is part of the fabric of women's existence in this country, and that that places us in an entirely different situation than if you had come in 50 years ago and made the same arguments.

So I guess I just wanted to hear you react to that. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-seven:

Well, I am going to react to this before letting Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart to speak for himself.

The passage of time can never make legitimate that which is illegitimate, and this is precisely the argument that Scott Stewart made before returning to his fatally flawed appeal to “popular sovereignty”:

MR. STEWART: Of course, Justice Kagan. Thank you. I -- I would emphasize a couple things, Your Honor. The fact that so much time has passed, let's say nothing had changed, that's not a point in Roe and Casey's favor. They have no basis in the Constitution. They -- they adopt a right that purposefully leads to the termination of now millions of human lives. The -- if nothing had changed, they'd be just as bad as they were 30 years ago, 50 years ago. And now we just have decades of damage, and we have a situation where nearly 30 years after Casey, the Court unfortunately divides over what Casey, the lead case on -- on -- in the abortion area, even means.

The lower courts are left not knowing what to do, as I think -- and I think kind of a fundamental problem here is, I think, as Justice Gorsuch mentioned, emphasized in his -- his opinion in -- in June Medical, that the problem for lower court judges is the Constitution doesn't give them an answer to this. There's no neutral rule of law, so judges unfortunately have to look within themselves. And that's just never going to solve this issue.

But, if the matter is returned to the people, the people can deal with it, they can work, they can compromise and reach different solutions. But, if we don't do that, we're just going to have all this sort of damage, and at some point, it's appropriate for the Court to say enough, as it has in some of its -- the great overrulings in -- in Brown and in other cases, where it said this is just enough.

Justice Harlan had it right in dissent in Plessy when he recognized that -- that -- that, you know, all are -- all are equal. And, here -- similarly here, the state should be able to recognize, hey, there are real values on both sides here. We -- we -- we think that this one slightly outweighs, we think that this one slightly outweighs, or we think that there's some balance to be drawn here.

But, if the Court doesn't do that, Justice Kagan, it's just going to be continued damage, and the Court will continue to plunge in this political issue.

I apologize, Mr. Chief Justice. I've gone over. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-eight:

First, there can never be any common ground between right and wrong, good or evil, virtue or vice, Christ or chaos.

Second, the “people” have nothing to “decide” about abortion any more than do their elected representatives or non-elected judges confirmed by them.

Third, the passage of fifty years never makes that which is wrong right, but it is only up to the “people” to obey God and conform human law to His law in all that pertains to the good of souls. In this regard, of course, the failure of the American “bishops” to discipline pro-abortion Catholics in public life has emboldened the forces of darkness and contributed to a general spirit of ignorance about, indifference to or hatred of objective standards of right and wrong beyond which human beings can never legitimately transgress.

It is now time for the Chief Justice, John Glover Roberts, Jr., to question Mississippi Solicitor Scott General, who represented the State of Mississippi in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization at the behest of Mississippi State Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

Roberts was concerned about the shift of Stewart’s focus in the writ of certiorari on “pre-viability” to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in oral argumentation. [A writ of certiorari is a petition made to request the Court to hear a case involving a significant constitutional question, which requires a vote of at least four justices to grant; a writ of appeal is a petition made to ask the Court to hear a case that it is statutorily required to consider before accepting or denying the writ.]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: No, no, that's all right. I have just a few little -- well, not little, I hope, questions, and the first gets back to the issue of viability. You know, in your petition for cert, your first question and the only one on which we granted review was whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. And then I think it's fair to say that when you got to the brief on the merits, you kind of shifted gears and talked a lot more about whether or not Roe and Casey should be overruled, and I wanted to give you a chance to explain that.

MR. STEWART: Sure, Your Honor. So a couple points. You know, at the petition stage, we were, of course, identifying -- we identified for the Court three questions. We emphasized, as you do at the cert stage, hey, this is important; only this Court can resolve it. We emphasized, I believe it was five times, that the Court was at the least going need -- going to need to reconsider, revisit, or reevaluate its precedents. And we asked the Court to at least get rid of a viability line or any suggestion of a viability line.

So we added, however -- and we had to take account of the reality that this argument has not fared well in the lower courts. It -- it -- it's lost in every court of appeals. So, you know, we -- we raised the issue in addition, but, once the Court granted only the first question, we presented every argument as we, you know, signaled we -- we would present the -- the -- the full-blown constitutional merits argument with that fundamental question. So I -- I'd emphasize that, Your Honor. It was kind of the shift you go from cert state to merits stage. The Court granted one question. That question fairly includes what is the correct standard.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, it fairly includes the broader arguments you raised. I'm not suggesting that. But, on the other hand, it presumably included the viability question as well, because that's what you talked about in that one sentence.

MR. STEWART: And -- and -- and we -- we've addressed that as well, Your Honor. What I -- what I'd emphasize here is that the merits arguments of, you know, the validity of Roe and Casey as an original matter, is there a viability rule based on the Constitution, those are not that complicated or -- or -- or lengthy. The harder questions are, you know, should the Court overrule and -- and take that momentous step? And that's why we devote a lot of space to that very important issue. We respect stare decisis and have walked through all those points. But, again, focusing on the question presented and arguing -- presenting our best arguments for that, that's -- that's what we've done, Mr. Chief Justice.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: On stare decisis, I think the first issue you look at is whether or not the decision at issue was wrongly decided. I've actually never quite understood how you evaluate that. Is it wrongly decided based on legal principles and doctrine when it was decided or -- or in retrospect? Because Roe -- I mean, there are a lot of cases around the time of Roe, not of that magnitude but the same type of analysis, that -- that went through exactly the sorts of things we today would say were erroneous, but do we look at it from today's -- if we look at it from today's perspective, it's going to be a long list of cases that we're going to say were wrongly decided.

MR. STEWART: Well, I'd say -- I'd say, Mr. Chief Justice, that you -- you look -- you can look both was it wrong at the time, has it been unmasked as wrong by -- by new understandings, new knowledge, any developments. But I -- I don't think -- as I -- I think the colloquy -- my colloquy with Justice Barrett indicated, the Court won't have -- have to be looking at -- at -- at much other -- many other areas because this is an area that has a uniquely problematic set of stare decisis considerations. A lot of other controversial areas or once controversial areas are -- are quite settled clear rules and don't have those considerations against them. So, really, by -- by overruling Roe and Casey, the Court won't have to go down that road, and a lot of those decisions are quite readily groundable in history, tradition, and the Court's traditional factors, Your Honor. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Twenty-nine:

In a nutshell, good readers, Chief Justice John Glover Roberts, Jr., is looking for a “compromise” whereby Mississippi Law HB 5110  can be upheld (he clearly signaled his intent in this regard while questioning the attorney arguing in behalf of Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization, Julie Rikelman; my analysis of her questioning will be in part two of this two-part series) while leaving the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey intact knowing full well that the effect would be same in that state legislatures desirous of restricting the surgical execution after the fifteenth week of a baby’s development in his mother’s womb without the political storm of a direct overturn that the State of Mississippi is seeking. That is what all the sophistry above was about, noting yet again that almost all the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America involving contraception, abortion, and sodomy have been wrong and have no standing before bar of Justice Himself, Christ the King.

After asking Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Sonia Sotomayor for any additional questions, Roberts turned to Associate Justice Elena Kagan, who knows that some states will rush to limit the surgical killing of preborn children to perhaps six or nine weeks of their development in the sanctuaries of their mothers’ wombs if Mississippi HB 1510 is upheld and Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are not overturned.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you. Justice Thomas?

JUSTICE THOMAS: No questions.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Breyer?

Justice Alito?

Justice Sotomayor?

Justice Kagan?

JUSTICE KAGAN: General, I -- I just wanted to get your quick sense of how your intermediate positions would work, you know, if basically the viability line was discarded and undue burden became the standard overall, a standard that according to you is an unclear one, what that would leave the Court with going forward.

You know, I'm just sort of thinking about the great variety of different -- of regulations that states could pass, so whether one is 15 weeks and one is 12 weeks and one is 9 weeks or variation across a wide variety of other dimensions. What would that look like coming to the Court? How would we -- how -- how do you think we should -- we would be able to deal with that or -- or how would you counsel us to deal with that if the Court were to go down that road?

MR. STEWART: Well, I think I -- that this is -- not to push back against the end -- and I will -- will answer your question, Justice Kagan, but part of why we've counseled to overrule full scale is that that's the only way to get rid of a number of the problems that I think Your Honor's alluding to.

And that's that when you have the undue burden standard, it's -- it's a very hard standard to apply. It's not objective. The Court looks to the record in each case and what's going on. I mean, the Court in Casey itself said, under this record, this is not an undue burden. You -- you couldn't say necessarily for certain that a certain number of weeks one place would be an undue burden but would be okay another place.

But, again, that is the world we have under Casey. So, if the Court upholds this law under the undue burden standard, it would be carrying forward with those features, which I -- and I hope I've answered your question, but I think that's one of the very strong reasons to just go all the way and overrule Roe and Casey, Your Honor. I -- anyway. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Thirty:

Mississippi State Solicitor General Scott Stewart anticipated Justice Kagan’s question by explaining that a clean overturning of both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey would prevent future challenges to state attempt to limit the surgical execution of babies earlier than fifteen weeks of their prenatal growth.

Once again, though there was nothing about the Fifth Commandment.

It’s on next to a line of questioning by the seventh ranking Associate Justice of the United States of America, Brett Michael Kavanaugh, who clearly wanted Mississippi State Solicitor General to make explicit what had been theretofore implicit in his oral argument and responses to the other justices, namely, to state the Constitution of the United States of America is “neutral” on abortion and that states would still able to permit the surgical slaughter of the innocent preborn even on a completely unrestricted basis if their state legislatures and/or the “people” wanted to do so. In other words, Justice Kavanaugh was leading the witness:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Gorsuch?

Justice Kavanaugh?

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: I want to be clear about what you're arguing and not arguing.

MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And to be clear, you're not arguing that the Court somehow has the authority to itself prohibit abortion or that this Court has the authority to order the states to prohibit abortion as I understand it, correct?

MR. STEWART: Correct, Your Honor.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And as I understand it, you're arguing that the Constitution is silent and, therefore, neutral on the question of abortion? In other words, that the Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion but leaves the issue for the people of the states or perhaps Congress to resolve in the democratic process? Is that accurate?

MR. STEWART: Right. We're -- we're saying it's left to the people, Your Honor.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: And so, for the -- if you were to prevail, the states, a majority of states or states still could or -- and presumably would continue to freely allow abortion, many states; some states would be able to do that even if you prevail under your view, is that correct?

MR. STEWART: That's consistent with our view, Your Honor. It's -- it's one that allows all interests to have full voice and -- and many of the abortions we see in certain states that I don't think anybody would think would be moving to change their laws in a more restrictive direction.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Thank you.

MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honor. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Thirty-one:

First, to reiterate what has been said before, a sound argument can be made on purely constitutional grounds alone that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s due process of law clauses prohibit the direct, intentional taking of any innocent human life.

Second, no one, whether acting individually or collectively with others in the institutions of civil governance, has any authority to do anything about the chemical or surgical killing of the innocent preborn other than to impose just penalties upon those who procure, assist, fund, perform abortions and, yes, upon those mothers who seek them, not that such penalties are matters of legitimate debate and discussion, especially in situations where distraught women have been pressured into killing their babies. Abortion is not a victimless crime, though. The blood of the innocent preborn cry out for justice.

To the final set of questions, which were posed by the most junior member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Justice Barrett.

JUSTICE BARRETT: General, I have a question that is a little bit of a follow-up to that Justice Breyer was asking you. That's about stare decisis. And I think a lot of the colloquy you've had with all of us has been about the benefits of stare decisis, which I don't think anyone disputes, and, of course, no one can dispute because it's part of our stare decisis doctrine that it's not an inexorable command and that there are some circumstances in which overruling is possible. You know, we have Plessy, Brown. We have Bowers versus Hardwick, to Lawrence.

But, in thinking about stare decisis, which is obviously the core of this case, how should we be thinking about it -- I mean, Justice Breyer pointed out that in Casey and in some respects, well, it was a different conception of stare decisis insofar as it very explicitly took into account public reaction. Is that a factor that you accept, or are you arguing that we should minimize that factor?

And is there a different set of rules -- it is true that Casey identified Brown and West Coast Hotel as watershed decisions. But is there a distinct set of stare decisis considerations applicable to what the Court might decide is a watershed distinction?

MR. STEWART: I don't think there should be a distinct set of -- of -- of considerations there, Your Honor. I think what I -- what I emphasize, and just to make sure, on -- on the kind of legitimacy, the Court looking outward, I -- I think Casey was unusual in that regard. I think it was a mistake. And I think it's something that is kind of in conflict with this Court's structure and approach as an independent branch looking to the Constitution rather than looking without.

And I -- I think that's one reason why traditionally the Court is -- is -- is -- in some of its greatest overrulings, it's -- it's not looking without. It's saying this was wrong. It was wrong the day it was decided. We know it's wrong today. And it's led to all these terrible consequences. We should get -- we should get rid of it.

 I -- so I -- I think that that was an unfortunate break, and I think the Court -- even if the Court were to -- were to still look at legitimacy, though, Justice Barrett, I think the Court could very, very powerfully say, look, our -- our legitimacy really derives from our willingness to stand strong and stand firm in the face of whatever is going on and stand for constitutional principle and follow our traditional stare decisis factors to overrule when it's appropriate.

Thank you, Your Honor.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. (Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, Et Al., Petitioners v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Et. Al.)

Interjection Number Thirty-two:

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart gave a very cogent answer to Justice Barrett, who was leading the witness in her own, albeit less obvious, way than had Justice Kavanaugh.

An adherence to constitutional principles, as good as that might be for as far as it goes, which is not very far at all, is useless if men do not adhere first and foremost to the binding law of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Then again, a nation without Catholicism is a nation that will always find itself arguable about the inarguable.

I will provide an analysis of the question of the attorney for Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Julie Rikelman, and of the Solicitor General of the United States of America, Elizabeth Prelogar, in the final part of this two-part analysis.

Concluding Remarks

This is no way to establish a just social order, especially when one considers that millions of people alive today blaspheme the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if not outrightly mock Him, His Most Blessed Mother, and His Holy Catholic Church, she who is our mother (mater) and teacher (magistra).

Impurity, indecency and immodest abound in so-called “modern” “culture.” Sins that once were considered shameful (fornication, adultery) and/or shamefully perverse (sodomy and its related vices) are celebrated widely throughout the nooks and crannies of “popular culture” and have been enshrined in laws and judicial decisions that are considered to be beyond criticism lest one be tarred and feather with the stigma of being “hateful” and “intolerant.” Children are corrupted in their families by television and the obscene language of their parents, and they are further corrupted by the rot of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that are nothing other than vulgar, profanity-laced enticements to sin, yes, even to the point of believing that one can change the gender that God has given him. This is all considered quite “normal” and “natural” when it is abnormal and unnatural, thus undermining the very fabric of social order as countless numbers of souls are deceived into living on the devil’s terms prior to being tortured by him and their demons eternally for having done so.

Innocent human beings are being attacked randomly on the streets of American cities, and many of the perpetrators are allowed to get out on bail immediately thereafter and some do not even get prosecuted by George Soros’s “woke” bought-and-paid for district attorneys in those cities, which are now havens of such lawlessness that I, for one, find it remarkable that even those who know better continue to want to live in such places.

Innocent human beings are being killed by means of “brain death” for the purposes of vital human organ vivisection and transplantation. They are being killed by means of starvation and dehydration, and they are being killed off in hospices under the aegis of “palliative” or “comfort care” by various custom-designed “cocktails” that kill human beings at a rate determined by the “team” of “professionals,” who are well-trained to use all manner of emotional manipulative to convince the unwilling to “let go” and to experience “death with dignity.”

None of this would change if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and physicians will continue to defy the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony by prescribing abortifacients that can be filled at CVS or Walgreen’s or Walmart or your neighborhood supermarket’s pharmacy.

While, of course, we do not remain inert in the face of the daily slaughter of the preborn by chemical and surgical means, we can never make compromises with truth of any kind, supernatural or natural. We must state the truth clearly, and then leave it to others to accept or reject it as we pray to Our Lady for their conversion and as we seek, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, to do penance for our own many sins of omission and commission that have played their own quite important role in worsening both the state of the world-at-large and the state of the Church Militant here on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Christ the King alone is Sovereign, and the very law that innocent human life is inviolable is inscribed on the very flesh of our hearts by God, Who has engraved it on the stone tablets that he gave Moses atop Mount Sinai:

And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

[11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal.

[16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his. [18] And all the people saw the voices and the flames, and the sound of the trumpet, and the mount smoking: and being terrified and struck with fear, they stood afar off, [19] Saying to Moses: Speak thou to us, and we will hear: let not the Lord speak to us, lest we die. [20] And Moses said to the people: Fear not: for God is come to prove you, and that the dread of him might be in you, and you should not sin. (Exodus 20: 6-20.)

Everything else other than basing human law upon God’s eternal laws is sophistry, and despite all the verbiage about “rationality” and “compelling state interest” in the arguments made by those seeking to find some way only to “restrict,” not eliminate, all surgical killing of babies, to say nothing of ending all chemical assassinations of children, no one is truly rational unless he considers the fact that God’s eternal laws are the only “compelling interest” one needs to consider when assuring the protection of all innocent human life from conception to death.

Fallen men will always sin and they will always make excuses to commit sin and to remain in states of sin.

Granted.

However, we can avoid sin by cooperating with the graces that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has won for us by shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Although the hour is very late, so late in fact that we may never live to see the restoration of all things in Christ the King during our lifetimes, we must continue, despite our own sins and failings, to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to Him and his true Catholic Church, which is not and can never be the heresy riddled conciliar sect that is replete with a so-called “pope” and “bishops” who celebrate the sins du jour with as much ready abandon as do the lords of the world and those who itching ears they always stand so ready to tickle.

We must take heed as we consider that, although He takes His time, God is just. Indeed, the seers of apparitions, on which, much like Our Lady’s apparitions in Garabandal, Spain, in 1961, Holy Mother Church has not ruled, in Heede, Germany, between 1937 during the height of Adolph Hitler’s so-called “Third Reich” were warned by Our Lady and then her Divine Son about the chastisements that human beings deserved for their wretched sins.

This what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told the seers at Heede in 1945 after His Most Blessed Mother had appeared to them between 1937 and 1940:

“Men have note listened to My Most Holy Blessed Mother when she appeared to them at Fatima, to exhort everyone to penitence. Now I, Myself, am coming in this last hour to warn and admonish mankind! The times are very serious! Men should at last do penance for their sins, turn away from their sins and pray, pray much in order the wrath of God may be mitigated. Particularly the Holy Rosary should be prayed very often. The Rosary is very powerful with God. Worldly pleasures and amusements should be restricted.

Men do not listen to My voice. They harden their hearts; they resist My grace. They do not wish to have anything to do with My Mercy, My Love, My merits. Mankind is worse than before the deluge. Mankind is suffocating in sin. Hatred and greed rule their hearts. This the work of the devil. They live in great darkness. All this is the work of satan. The world sleeps in a dense darkness…. This generation deserves to be annihilated but I desire to show Myself as Merciful.

Through the wounds that bled, Mercy will again gain victory over justice. My faithful souls should not be so asleep now like the disciples on Mount Olivet. They should pray without ceasing and gain all they can for themselves and for others.

Tremendous things are in preparation; it will be terrible as never before since the foundation of the world. All those who in these grave times have suffered so much, are martyrs and form the seed for the renovation of the Church. There were privileged to participate in My captivity, in My scourging, in My crown of thorns, and My Way of the Cross.

The Blessed Virgin Mary and the choirs of angels will active during these events. Hell believe that it is sure of the harvest, but I will snatch it away from them. I will come with My peace. Many curse me now, but these sufferings will come over mankind that they may be saved through it … Many expiate all they can for those who curse me Me now …

With a few faithful I will build up my Kingdom. As a flash of lightning this Kingdom will come … much faster than mankind will realize. I will give them a special light. For some this light will be a blessing; for others darkness. The light will come like the Star that showed the way to the wise men. Mankind will experience My love an My power … My beloved, the hour comes closer. Pray without ceasing. (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

Lest the skeptic doubt whether it is worthwhile to reflect on the apparitions of Our Lady and her Divine Son at Heede, Germany, it is good to consider what has been written in their defense:

It has been falsely reported that the Vatican rejected or even condemned the apparitions of Heede. While there has been no formal judgment issued about the apparitions or message, the Bishop of Osnabrück received a favorable report from two priests he sent to investigate. It was only after wonderful cures occurred that the parish priests and other clergy supported the seers (forbidding a public dance announced for October 21, 1945, in response to their warnings). A new parish priest, appointed by the Bishop at the time the apparitions commenced, declared that there are “undeniable proofs of the seriousness and authenticity of these manifestations.” Pilgrimages and devotions in honor of Our Lady of Heede have always been freely permitted. The history of the apparitions and messages has appeared in numerous publications bearing the Imprimatur of various bishops. Great caution is required on the part of the faithful, however, because of the flood of allegations of apparitions and supernatural messages plaguing the world these days. These phony apparitions almost always contradict the true Catholic Faith in some way. But in the apparitions and messages of Heede we find nothing contrary to the Faith; indeed, their similarity to the approved apparitions of Fatima, Lourdes and La Salette give good. (See Our Lady of Heede.)

I think that the content of the message that the seers at Heede received from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is quite valid, and it is even more relevant to our times today that they were given between 1937 and 1945, especially since Our Lord Himself warned a seer, Greta Ganseforth, about a dance that was to take place at school in Heede:

There was an occasion when a school dance was being prepared which apparently was going to exceed Catholic norms for modesty and decency. At the request of Jesus, Greta sought to have the dance cancelled or at least modified so that it would not be a dangerous occasion of sin for the youth. Greta even appealed to the parents of the students to not go against the warning from Jesus, who stated:

“If they proceed with that dance, all involved will have to answer to Me at their Judgment.” (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

“Rock for Life,” anyone?

I do not think so, and the danced schedule to take place in Heede, Germany, in 1945 was about eight years or so before the appearance of the diabolical disturbance of the soul called “rock and roll” and its various mutations, each of which come straight from hell.

The narrative proceeds:

The dance for October 21, 1945, was cancelled. Along with this event and a number of other miraculous healings, other priests and clergymen finally believed. (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

It had been three years previously that Bishop Hermann Wilhelm Berning, the Prefect of Schleswig -Holstein, “made the following remarks” during a sermon delivered on July 23, 1942:

“From Heede came a rich blessing. I could see that Marian devotion dramatically increased—that sacramental life, in particular, has flourished dramatically in this parish.” (cf. Queen of the Universe, Heede, Germany, 1937-1945.)

I believe that the warning of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ should sober us up from believing that there is anything short of Catholicism that can retard the evils of these days, evils that are caused what are in the objective order of things the Actual Sins of Men, leaving subjective culpability for them to God, Who alone judges individual souls, in world that has been deprived of the true teaching offices of Holy Mother Church and is devoid of the superabundance of Actual Graces caused by the spiritual barrenness of the conciliar sect’s abominable liturgical rites.

Indeed, most Catholics have never even heard of, no less read, this beautiful and moving summary of Catholic truth found in Pope Leo XIII's Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, that has been oft-quoted on this site:

We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Having made war against the Social Reign of Christ King by its embrace of "religious liberty" and "healthy secularity--and blasphemed Him by means of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo worship service, the counterfeit church of conciliarism has actually fed into the social evils it seeks to oppose as it robs Catholics yet attached to its structures of the means by which they can see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith and thus come to a recognition that we must be uncompromisingly Catholic in thought, word and speech at a times and in all circumstances without any exception whatsoever. The conciliarists have robbed Catholics of the ability to look that the following statement of Pope Saint Pius X and to recognize the truth contained therein:

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.. . .

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

It is essential that Catholics come to recognize that the remote cause of all problems, whether personal or social, is Original Sin and that the proximate cause for our social problems today is Modernity's warfare against the Incarnation and thus against the Social Reign of Christ the King, a warfare that has been aided and abetted by conciliarism's warfare against the necessity of restoring Christendom as the foundation, although never an absolute guarantor, of course, of personal and social order.

Each family should, however, find some time today to pray an extra set of mysteries of the Rosary if possible to pray in reparation for abortion, both chemical and surgical, and for the conversion of those of who have had, performed, participated in or been supportive of abortion in any way, shape or form, remembering also to pray for the day that the United States of America will become the Catholic States of America. God will never "bless" a land that is responsible for the shedding of so much innocent blood under cover of law, a land that has spread, in the name of "civil and religious liberty," mind you, Protestant "churches" and Masonic "lodges" in formerly Catholic countries, taking many souls out of the true Church in the process, a country that has spread fashions and "entertainment" fare that have been responsible for the poisoning of so many souls

While it is important to continue to be a peaceful, prayerful presence in front of the abortuaries as we pray our Rosaries alongside our fellow traditional Catholics (we cannot participate in Catholic "ecumenical" events where the false "luminous mysteries" are prayed) and to do the work of sidewalk counseling for those who are so called, it is necessary first and foremost to build up the Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in our own souls, seeking to making reparation for our own many sins, especially those, if any, against the virtues of Chastity and Modesty, as the precondition for helping to plant a few seeds for the restoration for His Social Reign over us and our nations.

In addition to our daily Rosaries and the acts of reparation we make to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, who better to turn do in our efforts to restore the Faith in this time of barbarism in the world and apostasy and betrayal on the part of the Modernists than to our beloved Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful:

O Blessed Saint Joseph, tenderhearted father, faithful guardian of Jesus, chaste spouse of the Mother of God, we pray and beseech thee to offer to God the Father, His divine Son, bathed in blood on the cross for sinners, and through the thrice-holy Name of Jesus, obtain for us from the eternal Father the favor we implore (mention your petitions):

Appease the Divine anger so justly inflamed by our crimes, beg of Jesus mercy for thy children. Amid the splendors of eternity, forget not the sorrows of those who suffer, those who pray, those who weep; stay the Almighty arm which smites us, that by thy prayers and those of thy most holy Spouse, the Heart of Jesus may be moved to pity and to pardon. Amen.

No, Christ the King must reign in our minds, not naturalism of the "left" or naturalism of the "right" or the naturalism of "populism," whether inchoate or fully developed. The "people" are not sovereign. Christ the King is sovereign. Everything else is a lie and an illusion

The Rome of the pagan emperors was not converted at the ballot box. It was converted by the missionary activity of the Apostles and those who followed them, over thirteen millions of whom shed their blood in defense of the Holy Faith.

 Why do we think the conversion of the modern civil state will take any less than that? Why do we think that we are exempt from suffering for the Faith?

Why do we even think that we deserve some respite from the inexorable growth of the size and power of the modern civil state that is has arisen in the wake of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

This is why we must fulfill that part of Our Lady's Fatima Message that we are able to fulfill, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, being willing to suffer gladly anything and everything that we are asked to suffer for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world. Our Lady wants to protect us in the folds of her mantle in these troubling times.

Will we let her?

Will we run to her as we renew daily our total consecration to her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart?

The following words of Pope Leo XIII, contained in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, should give us cause before we continue to rush into the insanity of listening the naturalist babblers babble on and on about "issues" that they do not understand clearly or fully because they believe in one naturalist falsehood after another:

Nor can such misgivings be removed by any mere human effort, especially as a vast number of men, having rejected the Christian faith, are on that account justly incurring the penalty of their pride, since blinded by their passions they search in vain for truth, laying hold on the false for the true, and thinking themselves wise when they call "evil good, and good evil," and "put darkness in the place of light, and light in the place of darkness." It is therefore necessary that God come to the rescue, and that, mindful of His mercy, He turn an eye of compassion on human society. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

What can be a better description of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic constitutional regime in the United States of America?

May the Rosaries we pray this day help to make reparation for the crimes of the baby-killers as well as for those of whose continue to kill the life of the soul and thus made more possible the daily war against all innocent human life, whether in the womb by means of chemical and surgical baby-killing or by the killing off of anyone after birth under the aegis of "brain death" or in the name of "compassion" by means of "palliative care." 

We can plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

We had better take heed of the warnings issued in Heede, Germany, and to be ever read to see beyond the headlines and thus to at everything through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Holy Name of Mary, save us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Nicholas of Myra, pray for us.