Blessings Faithful Watchmen,
This is a beautiful touching update from the Justice Foundation of Operation OUTCRY: – The end of abortion oral argument in Dobbs-Part 1.
We need to keep this in continuing prayer daily until the Supreme Courts final decision in May.
Love & Light, Janet
Dear Janet,
Please read the update below from our friends with The Justice Foundation. Let’s continue praying to end abortion in America.
Thank you!
____________________________
Luana Stoltenberg, Operation Outcry and Allan Parker, President of The Justice Foundation, Interview with One American News.
Click on the picture to listen to the interview.
Amazing Week Towards The End Of Abortion
Oral Argument in Dobbs-Part 1
Dear Friends and Supporters,
As a signer of The Moral Outcry Petition or a Supporter and Friend of The Justice Foundation and Operation Outcry, I want to thank you, thank you, thank you for helping to make last week in Washington, D.C., possible, amazing, and a tremendous advance to the future. Because of your past financial support, your signature on The Moral Outcry, your support of the testimonies of women injured by abortion, and your prayers, I believe that the Lord gave us many amazing, unusual and extraordinary (see Isaiah 28:14-22) victories last week on the road to ending abortion in America. I want to deeply, deeply, deeply thank God first, and you second, for all that you have done.
Here are some of the extraordinary highlights: For the first time in history, the pro-life side outnumbered the pro-abortion side on the street in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, we highly outnumbered them.
While it may not be obvious to those who have not attended in the past, it is very important that there be a physical presence supporting pro-life outside the Supreme Court on the day of Oral Argument for spiritual and practical reasons. Between 8:00am and 10:00am, the pro-life side, exhibiting tremendous unity, outnumbered the pro-abortion side by about three to one. Around 10:00 AM, one thousand students from Liberty University overwhelmed the scene and flowed onto the pro-abortion side simply because there were so many young students. These young students are our future and I believe their lives were forever marked by for good by that day.
Amazing Moral Outcry Oral Argument Highlights
The Moral Outcry Petition was highlighted in two extremely significant ways. One of the major arguments made in The Moral Outcry Petition, for which there were 539,108 of your names as signers in the actual brief before the Court, is that Abortion Is A Crime Against Humanity, like Dred Scott, the Court’s pre-civil war slavery decision, and Plessy v. Ferguson. In Plessy, the Court’s decision supposedly enshrined “separate but equal” segregation in the Constitution forever. However, we remind the Court in the Petition that one of the Court’s greatest cases is Brown v. Board of Education, which in 1954 overturned the Court’s own 58-year-old Plessy segregation decision.
During the Oral Argument, Justice Alito hammered the U.S. government’s attorney, Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, with the argument that if a case was bad enough like segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson, then shouldn’t it be overruled immediately even without a major change. He hammered her with the question: and she had to admit that that Brown v. Board of Education was right and that Plessy v. Ferguson was a wrong Supreme Court decision from the day that it was decided. But she wouldn’t admit it should have been reversed afterwards even without some significant change. However, she looked terribly bad and looked like a defender of segregation.
Oral Argument Highlight #2 – Safe Haven Law
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also used the Safe Haven argument, which is in The Moral Outcry Brief with 2,249 Women Injured By Abortion, and the Brief of 375 Women Injured By Abortion, all clients of The Justice Foundation. It is safe to say and true, that our clients have been the greatest, strongest and most persistent advocates of the Safe Haven law as a solution to the abortion problem. Amy Coney Barrett asked the question this way: “Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy, you know, which we have in other contexts, like vaccines. However, it doesn’t seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden. And so, it seems to me that the choice more focused would be between, say, the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion. Why — why didn’t you address the safe haven laws and why don’t they matter?” She asked the Safe Haven question of both the abortion industry lawyer and the United States government lawyer. Keep in mind that the U.S. government under President Biden was arguing for the right to kill children. The Safe Haven law question by Barrett is the first time in history that it has been mentioned by a member of the U.S. Supreme Court as a possible solution to the unwanted child problem and that is one of the major arguments we and our clients have been making.
Media Coverage
We were able to make these new arguments both in the briefs which were filed with the Court, and the media. The Briefs were all read by the Court prior to the December 1st Oral Argument. Here is the basic laymen’s argument that we were able to make in the media, and it is a summary of the argument in our briefs: “Why shouldn’t Roe v. Wade be reversed when the Court has admitted that it kills an “infant life” (Gonzales); causes “devastating psychological consequences”, (Casey); and “severe depression” and “loss of esteem to some women”, (Gonzalez); when women can use the Safe Haven law to remove all burden of parenting.” We were then able to make this argument in major media and local media across the country. Click here for some of the media coverage.
Hannah S. Also Made Her Living Proof Argument
One of the arguments in The Moral Outcry Petition is that new science shows that life begins at conception/fertilization.
The Brief of our client, Hannah S., the first formerly frozen human embryo to file an Amicus Curiae brief at the Supreme Court, made this point dramatically. Hannah is living proof as shown by her pictures in the brief that she was able to live outside her genetic mother’s womb for over 2 years, frozen in vitro, before being placed in her adoptive mother Marlene’s womb. Click here to read the Brief. There was great coverage of this point in the media, see above as well.
This is beautiful Hannah.
What’s Next? How Can You Help? Don’t Stop Now.
The case has been argued. But this case is not decided until the decision comes out publicly, which could be April, May or even late June next year. The Court is writing opinions now, and any member of the Court is free to change their mind until it is released publicly. You will know when it is finally decided because it will become “breaking news” as soon as the Court releases its opinions.
Pray
In the meantime, please keep praying. It is important to pray. In 1992, in Casey, (the last time the Court considered reversing Roe) during the week of Oral Argument, five judges voted preliminarily to reverse Roe v. Wade. In the months after, Justice Kennedy changed his mind. We do not know what the vote is in this case. That was a private matter taken by the Court during the week of the Oral Argument. That is one of the reasons we had so many people there praying, but you must continue praying. If you would like to be on prayer calls or receive prayer alerts, let us know by emailing info@txjf.org.
Thank you for all you have done!
Advancing Life, Liberty and Justice in Him,
Allan E. Parker
President
The Justice Foundation