Roe v. Wade 35th Anniversary-37 Million People Cannot Attend the Party


Today marks the 35th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and it is estimated that over 37 million babies have been aborted since 1973 in the United States.  To put that in perspective, if you wiped the total population of New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles off the map–that would still be a few hundred thousand short of 37 million. 

There are news stories all over the web today about this–and some sites are having a party.  The National Organization of Women says on their webpage that “continued vigilance is necessary.”  In fact, the President has this to say: “This year we have the chance to elect a new administration and send new members to Congress who will help protect and expand our reproductive freedom. Come November we must elect a president who will be vigilant in upholding a woman’s right to make her own childbearing decisions, including access to birth control and abortion,” said NOW President Kim Gandy.

I thought I would include her picture here:

You see, her picture can appear on this site because her mother did not choose to have her expelled from her womb before she was ready in an intentional act of killing her.  Lucky Kim.

I like the new terms the pro-death crowd is using–“reproductive freedom” and “reproductive justice.”  You see, “freedom” and “justice” are so valuable to us here in America.  Throughout our history men and women have died to preserve the precious nature of “freedom” and “justice.”  But the unborn child–his/her “freedom” and “justice” are in the hands of another.  The unborn child, with no voice, no podium, no blog to write on has to rely on one person to protect his/her “freedom” and “justice.”  That person is his/her mother.  And who better?  For only a mother will love, care and protect a child more than anyone else in the world.  Only a mother understands the pain and joy her child experiences.  A mother would be the first to give her life for her child if called upon to do so.  And yet… Ms. Gandy calls upon mothers to be “vigilant” in her right to end the life of her unborn child.

“Vigilant” is a great word. It means to be keenly watchful to detect danger or to be wary.  You only have to add a small “e” to the end of this word and you get “vigilante.”  A “Vigilante” is any person who takes the law into his or her own hands.  In its adjective form it means “done violently and summarily, without recource to lawful procedures.”

I think that since the “pro-choice” crowd has come up with new terms–to be fair “pro-lifers” ought to do the same.  So let’s call them what they really are:  “Reproductive Vigilantes.”

The definition of “Reproductive Vigilantes” therefore would be one who, without recourse to the rights and freedoms of the unborn, decides summarily and violently to end the life of that unborn child.”

Now with my new PC term in hand, let’s discuss the beautiful State of Vermont.  Today an article hailing the Anniversary of Roe appeared.  In that article we have the following quote:  “For a generation of women and men born after Roe, it is incumbent upon us to remember that the right to make personal childbearing decisions has enable women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often unthinkable before Roe,” said Rep. Rachel Weston, D-Burlington.

Here is Rachel’s picture–lucky for her, her mom chose to not end her life before her voice could be heard in the Vermont Legislature.  Lucky for her, her mother was not a Reproductive Vigilante.

But I suppose I’m being too harsh, after all, a very famous world leader expressed his pro-choice view when he said, ” in view of the large families of native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible.”  Who was that famous person?  Well, lucky for him I can show his picture too: 

 Today of all days, we need to get on our knees and beg forgiveness that we have allowed this Country to end the lives of 37 million people (more than Hitler, more than Stalin) out of convenience and in the fraudulent names of “freedom” and “Justice” and “Equality.”  To use such words in this context is a bullet to the head of the men and women who have fought for such rights only to see the U.S. strip those rights away from the most innocent among us.  This is not a day to celebrate but rather a day to mourn.  It is the anniversary of the death of numerous generations of children and grandchildren and furture scientists, doctors, lawyers, teachers and yes, directors of non-profit organizations and state legislators. 

So I would ask us all to focus on those below, those who were fortunate enough to have loving moms instead of Reproductive Vigilantes:

  God Bless every Mom who no matter what the cost, no matter the inconvenience, no matter their age, no matter their economic status, realized that life is precious and that the life of the unborn child growing inside them was more precious than their reputation, their social status, their economic status and their personal selfish plans for the future.  Thank you for choosing LIFE over SELF.


Explore posts in the same categories: Abortion, Current Events, Family, Law, Life, News, Parenting, Politics, Thoughts on the World

12 Comments on “Roe v. Wade 35th Anniversary-37 Million People Cannot Attend the Party”

  1. kristiane Says:

    I never get on the soapbox about this subject, mostly because it just seems that so many people don’t get it. So I won’t do that now either. But thanks for your post Murphy.

  2. mklasing Says:

    I know–it is a tough one–I have published a law article on the subject in the past and have been fairly active at times in assisting pro-life organizations with legal matters. I wasn’t going to post anything but then I read and heard to much on the other side this am on the radio and on the web and my brain exploded–so to repair it somewhat I had to post. Not my typical satire/sarcasm-driven post–but heartfelt I assure you. 🙂

  3. pistolpete Says:

    I give thanks to two moms in particularly who chose life for their children. They didn’t believe they could raise their children well, but the chose a family who could – ours. Thanks to all the birth moms who find good adoptive homes for their children. There are plenty out there.

  4. I used to be far more radical about this 20-years ago. I’ve not given it much thought to be honest. Today, because of the media hoopla covering the anniversary was the first time I’d thought about abortion since the 1992 Republican National Convention held here in Houston.

    It’s a very emotional topic and like Kristianne, I won’t venture into areas in which I’m not in the mood to debate—with anyone at anytime, but I think your post brilliantly portrays your position. It’s incendiary and polarizing.

    But you handled it deftly and I’d expect nothing less from you, Murph.


  5. mklasing Says:

    LK: Believe me, when I was younger I (as they say here in Texas) “wrassled” with this issue quite a bit. Then, through the Crisis Pregnancy Center, I met a number of women who both kept their children or gave them up for adoption and some who had terminated their pregnancies—it was clear that the ones who chose to have the babies (whether they kept them or not) were so glad for their decision and the others were living a lifetime of depression and guilt. In law school I dove head first into the legalities of this topic and the science surrounding it and became a near-activist on the subject. I’ve been realtively quiet about it for a while but yesterday my buttons got pushed a little too much.

    I realize my passion on this subject is different from many and is considered offensive to some but as you and I have pointed out on our respective blogs–the title of the blog dictates the opinions that are portrayed.

    Thanks for the comment–and I plan to immediately return to less incendiary and polarizing topics. 😉

  6. I’d like to clarify something, Murph…I just realized that it probably loooked as though I said your post was incediary and polarizing. I didn’t mean that.

    My apologies.

    I meant that the topic of abortion itself is incendiary and polarizing. I thought your wrote a well thought out piece that perfectly depicted your position. The photos backed it up further.

    Sorry for any confusion.


  7. mklasing Says:

    LK: No problem at all–I knew what you meant. And you have license to tell me what you really think about anything I write. I respect your opinion immensely (sp?). Thanks for the encouragement–as always.

    What I meant is that I’m going to be less serious for the next 100 or so posts. 😉

  8. Nigel Says:

    Thanks Murph…this topic is personal to me?


    Because my mom was 16 when she became pregnant with me and I would have been aborted had baby murder been legal in 1965.

    Why do I know this?

    Because my mother did in fact have an abortion in the ’70s when her pregnancy was “inconvenient” to her. She does not know that I know.

    My sister grew up to have three more abortions. She also does not know that I know…

    Sorry to bare my soul here, folks…

  9. Nigel Says:

    Oh…didn’t mean that first “?” question mark in my last comment…

    my bad

  10. Stacy Says:

    Murph, that was an awesome take on the subject. I am speechless.

  11. mklasing Says:

    Stacy: Thanks for the comment-it means a lot. This was a GRAND departure from my usual posts–but it just hit a new nerve with me that day for some reason.

  12. Excellent article and excellent points made. Thanks for sharing this.

    I have written an essay on this subject and add my 2¢ to the argument.

Leave a Reply to Laurie Kendrick Cancel reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: