Isn't it wonderful that intellectual giants like John Jakes take time out from their busy schedules to impart their wisdom to us?

John Jakes,
What a wonderful example of Christian charity you have given us. Do you actually have something to add to the discussion or do you just want to make it obvious you do not live by the Golden rule?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

You are completely nuts.
Why don't you read the Gospels for a change, and stop with the Old Testament? What's wrong with you?
Golden rule? Nah. Too Christian for you guys, you Sunday-School dropout blowhards.

One, moral means of eliminating the sites would be to buy the buildings and evict the tenents.
This is true. The means for eviction might be that you plan to demolish the building that you own, so you can put something better there, like a field of rotting animal carcasses.

Most abortion mills are in rented or leased facilities. One, moral means of eliminating the sites would be to buy the buildings and evict the tenents.

Paul Druce,
I want abortion to end as much as anyone, but you can not use immoral means to end something immoral. You can not do evil that good may come about. Before you say it (since Jamie Beu seemed to say otherwise) there is no obligation to follow an unjust law. That means that morally licit but "illegal" actions like planting yourself in front of the door of an abortion clinic and refusing to move are fine, if you don't mind being arrested. What you can not do is engage in violent terrorist activities, even againts truly evil targets. Only governments can engage in violent activities of the sort you hint at. If America was pro-life and wanted to send a missile to every abortion mill in Europe in the middle of the night, it might perhaps be able to be considered, useing the Just War doctrine to see if it is licit, for instance is there a reasonable chance of success in ending abortion and is the harm done (possible loss of life etc.) not disproportionate.
I strongly suspect that even this would not be a Just War, because it is not a military target and because it would cause wars with other countries that would not appreciate the action.
In any case, if you are not President Bush or another head of state writing under a pseudonymn this whole area of action (violence, bombs, etc.) is closed to you.
I wonder where you live and who you interact with that none of them would think there is a moral problem with destroying (presumably covertly blowing up) an abortion clinic. I don't know anyone who would even consider considering that as a moral option, including many other very pro-life Catholics and Protestants. I know that pro-life groups like Priests for Life condemn such actions strongly.
If you will not listen to this, then at least consider a practical argument. Destroying an abortion clinic or killing an abortion practitioner will not stop abortions. The woman will just go to another "clinic." What it will do is make people think pro-lifers are crazy evil fanatics. That can only hurt the pro-life cause.

I don't know of anyone who'd say that there's a moral problem with destroying an abortion clinic.
If it is no longer owned by someone who wants it there, it can be destroyed (to make way for something better, like a parking lot).
But if someone owns the property the clinic is on, and doesn't want it destroyed, then there are moral problems with destroying it, among them: thous shalt not kill (if people are in the building at the time); thou shalt not steal (destruction of someone else's property is equivalent to taking it away from them); thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods (even though we don't like it, it is still rightfully theirs to do with as their free will allows).
This is the same problem with that professor from NKU - she didn't like something, and she thought it would be morally permissable (via "free speech") to destroy it, but she was and is wrong.
Now, there's nothing immoral about making the laws so restrictive and costs so prohibitive, that abortion "doctors" flee the state (as they have done in SD and MS), thereby abandoning the clinics, to be bought up (by legal means) and then demolished to make way for something better (like a land-fill).
Going by the rules (even if some of the rules may seem injust) is called "obedience to rightful authority". This is how we will win the day. We, like Jesus, can only do what we have seen the Father do - what we've seen the Father do has been through the life and actions of His Son, Jesus, who was obedient in every way, even unto death. Why should we consider ourselves "above the law" if the Lawgiver was Himself subject to it?
P.S. Thank you, Decker, for pointing out that FL is a "notable example". Please pray that FL (the state of Terri Schiavo) will become an example of the Culture of Life.
P.P.S. Also interesting to note is that the states with the highest number and percfentage of Catholics are the states that are predicted to protect abortion rights. WAY TO GO BISHOPS!!!
B - I made the same point myself about the "Catholic" Democrats in Congress.
It is also worth noting that, of the most populous states, this is the breakdown of those Catholic Democrats that signed the statement, as a ratio of the Catholic Democrats from that state:
Texas: 2 out of 4 Catholic Democrats signed the statement
Pennsylvania: 3 out of 5 Catholic Democrats signed the statement
New York: 5 out of 9 Catholic Democrats signed the statement
Massachusetts: 7 out of 7 Catholic Democrats signed the statement
California: 14 out of 14 Catholic Democrats signed the statement

Looks like these bishops better get on the ball (and we're really pointing at you, Mahoney!).

Licit, Paul, licit.
(PS: your assertion is demonstrably false, but I like your spunk.)
I don't know of anyone who'd say that there's a moral problem with destroying an abortion clinic.

And the schools will propagandize those children to be pro-abort, pro-sodomite, anti-Christian, anti-natural law graduates. Such things might even go into the mandatory standards.

A minor point, but to correct something that one commenter wrote, John Paul Stevens was NOT appointed by a pro-life Republican, but rather by the VERY pro-abortion Republican Gerald Ford.
And Ford nominated Stevens specifically because he WASN'T a conservative, since he wanted to avoid a fight in the Senate.
I apologize if someone else has already pointed that out.

Licit, Paul, licit.
(PS: your assertion is demonstrably false, but I like your spunk.)

Is there another licit option besides the political process?
No abortion clinic, no abortions.

Jamie,
Florida is a notable counter-example, but I think the "states compared" chart shows that, on the whole, when you order the states from highest abortion rate to lowest, the states at the top of the list are dark states, and the states at the bottom are light states. From eyeballing the chart, it looks like only 4 of the 22 light blue states are in the top 50% in terms of frequency of abortion. And there are only three light blue states in the top 18 (abortion rate 20% or higher).

I am ready for the fight-bring on the war!

A little aside about the populations of states. Please be aware that economics play a major role. The children of Michigan, for example, are leaving the state because of declining economic opportunities. When they move to other places, I wonder how many will keep their "downhome" Pro-Life view and how many will just absorb the values of their new environment.

Another slant on the abortion tax... How 'bout making abortion providers perform abortions for free? Heck, it's a "right".

This is complete inverse of how law making works. As the number of instances of an undesired activity increase, the will to legislate increases. Logically speaking, placing like North Dakota would most likely not elect to limit abortion to a significant degree, and placing like New York would be more likely to add restrictions. The most likely outcome in the end is what we see in Europe: 3rd trimester abortion are rare, and 1st trimester abortions are tolerated.

USA Today loves to make pretty maps with color-coded states.
But, where are the children of America, the future of America?
Combining data for 2004-2005 with the map, here are the states with at least 1 million children (

***BAD ASSUMPTION ALERT***
"Because they will have fewer abortions, the Roe Effect will intensify and their populations will rise. They will therefore acquire more legal representatives and have more pro-life folks in them at the same time."
Also interesting to note is that the states with the highest number and percfentage of Catholics are the states that are predicted to protect abortion rights. WAY TO GO BISHOPS!!!

Emily, thank you for providing the much needed rays of hope. Too often we "put our trust in princes" only to have them dashed by "political realities". What we forget is that it's always been the people, not the gov't, that gets things going right again. Where govts fail, the people, led by God working in their lives, have always stepped up.
It was not the kings of Israel and Judah, nor the emperors of Rome, who guarded and spread the faith - they only reacted to it being guarded and spread by the people. Usually that reaction was bad (as we have had the past 30+ years), but sometimes they reacted in positive ways (like Constantine). Let God, who puts kings and rulers in their place, handle the politics - we must do our part helping handle the people.
The light blue states already have very low abortion rates.
unfortunately, not true. As I said before, Florida is mislabeled, and if you look at the States Compared sidebar chart, Florida actually has the 5th highest abortion rate (27%) - 4th highest if you don't count D.C. as a state. In raw numbers, it has the 3rd highest count of abortions per year (103,000), accounting for 7.8% of the total abortions in the U.S. - yet it's shaded "light blue" for being "strict" on abortion.
Sorry - I've prayed in front of the abortion clinic in downtown Orlando (most recently on Holy Saturday morning with Bishop Wenski, God bless him), and I didn't see any slowing down out of respect for the holiday or "strict" laws. The only reason anyone thought twice was because of the people doing sidewalk counseling or rosary for life - political stump speeches have no impact when it comes to this plague on our society.
Is there another licit option besides the political process?
Well, it's not morally licit, and it uses the political process (2 strikes), but I just thought of it yesterday and posted it (as a joke) on my blog - an abortion tax.
Think about it: adoptions currently cost at least $10,000 (and that's from China!); giving birth to a child costs at least $2000 (actually, closer to $4000); but an abortion is about $250. If we truly find abortions to be reprehensible or objectionable (or as the Catholic Democrats in Congress say "undesirable"), but not enough so that we want to outlaw it, we can treat it like alcohol and tobacco: slap a "sin tax" on it! I think an "abortion tax" should be high enough to make people really think about getting an abortion and consider taking more responsibility for their sexual behavior. Putting it at the same level as giving birth (much like a tariff that makes import cars cost the same as domestic cars) would be a good benchmark for being a deterrent to behavior that causes abortions. Therefore, a $250 abortion, plus the abortion tax, should be cost a total of $5000. If this doesn't reduce the 1.2 million abortions/year in the U.S., it would at least raise $5.7 billion/year in taxes that could go to unwed mothers, underprivileged children, and aid to those seeking to adopt.
I do not mean to make light of the abortion holocaust, but those that think that not having enough protesters to march for abortion "rights" are just as insensitive as an abortion tax.

I think legal abortion will end when we have prayed enough rosaries. Look what happened to the Soviet Communist Empire after we had prayed enough of them. Even after nearly 2000 years of Christianity we sometimes forget the power of intercessory prayer.
"That's the fabric of miracles: the impossible."--Adama, "(The original) Battlestar Galactica: Living Legend."

I'll just add that I hope Jimmy and Emily S. are right and I am wrong, though the go against my own observations, reason, and just instinctive sense of where the world is going. Still, God is the master of history. If he decides to have abortion stop, it will.
And not infrequently, for that very reason, the fool's hope will prove truer than the gloom of the "realists."

No, you can't legislate morality. But you can have laws and enforce them. We have laws against immoral things like stealing, murder, and perjury (unless, of course, that perjury is only about sex and, besides, no perjury prosecution ever fed a hungry child). We enforce those laws imperfectly, but we don't say: "Well, we can't catch all the thieves, so we'll just make larceny legal. (I'm not saying you implied that, Mike; I'm referring to the attitude some people have--a certain Republican president somes to mind-- about enforcing certain laws).

Jimmy,
The light blue states already have very low abortion rates. The vast majority of abortions occur in the states where abortion will likely remain legal on demand even without Roe. So, even in a post-Roe world, the overall abortion rate on a national basis won't change very much, which means that the hoped for increase in population in pro-life states (and corresponding decrease in population in pro-abortion states) is likely to be modest and slow.

OK, we're all talking about what the Supreme Court will do now - which is like talking about generals and what choices they'll make. Nor am I going to disagree in any particular that what generals order is usually what generals get.
However, down here in the trenches things are looking pretty bright. I've been teaching students who've graduated in 2003 to students who will graduate in 2009, over which time I've seen a 100% change regarding abortion. (And this, I may remind you, is in Massachusetts - God saving us!)
In my first year teaching seniors, I had a student look me in the eye and say: "I see all your facts. I don't dispute them. There is a human child there. And I still refuse to call it murder." This year, readying myself for the usual battle on the subject, I discovered much to my surprise that every single one of my Juniors was pro-life. No questions. No need, even, to "play up" the effects on the mother (a good tactic for those who can't see past themselves) - just simply...pro-life. My freshmen, too! And about 70% of last year's freshmen. And about 50% of last year's juniors.
Now, that's not to say that a few of them don't still struggle with "mercy killing" - or with gay marriage or contraception - but even in these areas, I've found that about 75% of them are very quietly, very naturally in line with the church.
Even those who, two years ago when the big gay "marriage" brou-ha-ha was happening here, would have been in favor of gay "marriage" have changed. Or are in the process (still trying to find a compromise that makes them feel as though they're being tolerant while wanting the right thing regardless).
Basically, in one of the darkest trenches here - there's hope.
So, yes, let's look to the generals - but don't forget the foot soldiers, too.

Is there another licit option besides the political process?
And as I said, the fight doesn't need to have hope to be worth fighting, and fighting hard.

So, we should be satisfied with "maybe possibly if we're lucky" using the political process to end abortion after having it in place for close to a century? Somehow, I doubt that's really an acceptable solution.

Ok. I'll leave the legalisms to others. I am skeptical that we can be confident that conservatives will beget conservatives and liberals' children who are aborted would be liberal. There are many instances of children choosing against their parents values--in both directions. Maybe, on balance most kids of conservatives will be conservative and most kids of liberals will be liberals. It's an oft-told story, however, of kids going the opposite way of mom and dad.

No matter what, you cannot legislate morality.
No matter how much you try.

Ps....Its not a redistribution of electoral votes..it depends on population and not a set number.

I for one would like to see an end to the Abortion Plague in this country But I have to be realistic for a number of reasons:
1) I dont see the Supreme Court being any help. We dont have the votes in hand and The Court has proven to be historically unpredictable. Even with the make up of the Robert" Court. There is nothing that makes me believe the Conservativew votes are there or solid. Over time the Court seem to run to the middle. If you think Stevens retiring or his death will help think again....
2) Lets look to November..Democrats will take control of Congress which eliminates any approval of any new conservative Justices. The Republicans have cut their own throats on many issues to avoid the obvious massacre. (Does the word "Custer" mean anything?) Let not even cosider the disater that two terms of Hillary will bring in 08 !!!! Our window of opportunity is closing and we blew it. Unless there is a miracle. We are stuck in Limbo !!! And no indulgence will help us and this mess! (and McCain aint the messiah!)
3) A constitutional change happen?..Not a chance..nice rhetoric for the sound bytes. No one in Congress really wants a constitutional convention and the process of an amendment takes to long and the public is too fickle. Besides..remember prohibition?..repealed that one!
Besides Gay marriage seems to getting the attention and States are losing that one it bit by bit it seems. The Skies are black and and the Horseman are riding in!!!!
4) I hate to be a pessimist But the religious right has shot itself in the foot. It tied itshope and dreams of a "Christian Revival" to GW and no Mother Lode there! ( and I voted for him twice!) President Bush has spent all his capital and gone to the Bank once too often. The President's numbers are down and any support he has is being drained by Iraq. The Party is in shambles and fighting for its life (As are the Democrats). Neither party can afford a major fight that this battle calls for. Even the public is tired!!! Remember Operation Rescue? what happened.
Sorry Jimmy but tea leaves are not the answer to the problem..All the wishful thinking and maps wont help. Even the last 2 elections showed painting Staes red and Blue doesnt help. Our Best hope is prayer if that still works? Other than that?..Hope that America finds a compass before we have to reorganize under Chapter 11 and we lose the whole farm!

I don't believe the federal political process, via the courts or otherwise, will end abortion in this country. My hope is that a state at some point will simply ban it and enforce the ban. Make the feds set up abortion clinics. A state must be willing to completely disregard orders from federal courts and disregard federal laws. It can be done, but I can't think of a state willing to take this step. Until this is done, I don't believe you will have enough inertia to overturn abortion rights.

Suffice to say that much stranger things have happened historically, and certainly we are living in strange times.
True - the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were all brought about when "half the country" was still pro-slavery.
The answer, in a word, is: Kennedy. The fact is no one knows what Justice Anthony Kennedy will do.
Why is it that the Kennedys even bother claiming to be Catholic? Shouldn't there be a new brand of Catholic for Kennedys called "Katholic"? Kind of like how krab salad is made with "imitation crab".
Feminism is dying.
Literally and figuratively. They are retiring from positions of power (see the Northern Kentucky U. story), aging, and dying off, without being able to replenish their numbers, to the point that they are finding it difficult to recruit people to march in their abortion rallies.
I hold no delusions of easy victory, in the SC or otherwise, as of yet - we do still need at least 1 more pro-life vote - but the tide has definitely turned. We just need to keep pushing and not become complacent, just because the wind is now at our backs.
I am kind of reluctant to claim victory, just because USA Today made up a map. They're calling Florida a strongly anti-abortion state - does anyone remember Election 2000? I live in Florida, and I can tell you that as the population grows, it's not just conservatives moving to the Sunshine State. Believe it or not, there are liberals in the Northern states, and they're also migrating to FL.
Pray for my state, because I have a nagging suspicion that between liberal bishops in S. Florida, the number of immigrants (illegal and otherwise), and the abortion issue, Florida is going to become the battleground state that is the bellwether for the rest of the nation.
Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time for me to feed my high horse and put him back in the stable. :-)

Suffice to say that much stranger things have happened historically, and certainly we are living in strange times. And of course most politicians will do whatever keeps them in office.
Jimmy is right: pro-aborts will abort future pro-aborts. We will win this war, but unfortunately it will be by attrition.
All that stands in the way is the SC, and you all should not be short-sighted about this. It used to be said, before the death of Rehnquist and the retirement of O'Connor, that we had four anti-Roe votes. Now, after two changes on the court, we still have four. Why is that? The answer, in a word, is: Kennedy.
The fact is no one knows what Justice Anthony Kennedy will do. No one. He hasn't said, and his flip-flopping lends one to the believe that he will now try to (less successfully) capture the O'Connor middle ground. But I think it is true that Kennedy floats where the popular wind blows. As it comes clear that America is putting away abortion, he will do his part.
That's my guess. But even that is a short-sighted view. We will have many court turnovers in the next thirty years. Feminism is dying. The baby boomers will last only so long (no offense to you boomers out there). Give it some time.

I am praying for a human rights amendment that grants the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all human beings from conception to death.

The Divine Mercy Chaplet in on on EWTN right now. I shall say it for further penance.
Or maybe just for an end to abortion.

"To give credit where it's due, I plagerized [sic] the last two sentences of my last post ..."
For your Penance, say two Hail Marys and, now, make an Act of Contrition....
..."God, the Father of Mercies, through the death and Resurrection of His Son .... "

To give credit where it's due, I plagerized the last two sentences of my last post from The Silmarillion by J.R.R. Tolkien, where he expressed the same idea like this:
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no them may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."

"Eventually, the dark states will not be able to compete with a move to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and one will get added, ending abortion in the United States."
Jimmy, we love you. It is because we love you that we, your friends, have assembled this political "intervention." If we didn't care about you, we wouldn't be here. If we didn't love you, we would be at the Olive Garden making fun of your ties. That said, PUT DOWN THE PIPE, JIMMY! CRACK KILLS! WE LOVE YOU, MAN!
Were you out sick, Jimmy, on that day that that your junior high school social studies class discussed the process by which the US Constitution is amended? Are you aware that unless we are talking about a constitutional convention called by the States-- and only one of the 27 amendments came about this way, by the way--it takes a MINIMUM of TWO-THIRDS of the members in BOTH the US Senate AND the US House of Representatives to vote in support of a proposed amendment before that proposal even goes to the State Legislatures for their consideration? Assuming the proposed amendment actually goes before the States, a MINIMUM of THREE-FOURTHS of the State Legislatures must then vote in support of the proposal before it actually becomes part of our US Constitution. Are you aware that the last ratified amendment, the 27th, took over 200 years to actually make its way into "the supreme law of the land?" (And that amendment speaks to the rather mundane matter of when pay increases for members of Congress actually go into effect...yawn)
Where oh where do we find the votes, Jimmy, for a proposed constitutional amendment that will, God willing, end legalized abortion in every square-inch of the United States?

Not to be a gloomy pessimist, but I must agree with Slugo's general appraisal of the situation. What is more, it looks more likely than not that in a few years we will have a Democrat president and Congress, and they will likely be the ones to replace Justice Stevens and any others who might need to be replaced in the near future.
Also, lets not forget the possiblilty of an overturn of Roe v. Wade being itself overturned as soon as the Court gets back in the hands of liberals. The UN could also get involved in the long term, such as if abortion is declared a human right, as I understand it almost was a few years ago. Maybe it is my New Yorker outlook, but this seems a much more likely scenario than any anti-abortion amendment (the only thing that could stop abortions around these parts), and an amendment that did not enshrine a "right" to abortion in certain circumstances like for the health of the mother is just unthinkable in today's world.
But hey, I'm a hopeless romantic for the great Northern myths, and that whole way of thinking. I can see the pro-life movement going down in flames and glory in our own Ragnarok. Or rather it will die with a wimper rather than a bang, but that is in keeping with the actual ways of God. Still, that makes the battle all the more hopeless and the defeat all the more complete, but the heroic struggle is no less worth it for being hopeless.
And ultimately it is not hopeless, because we have God on our side. Will he intervene and the world become Pro-Life? I doubt it, at least any century soon. But ultimately, though the power of evil triumph almost utterly before the end, Christ will have the ultimate victory, and the world will be remade. And it will be all the more beautiful for the evil that had existed in former ages, for nothing can happen without God's permission, nor can anyone alter the world in His despite. Those who try do so to their own ruin, but will bring forth beauty that they could never have imagined.

"But what you're looking at is . . . the Beginning of the End for abortion."
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy! ... Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch! I may not know much, but somewhere along the line I learned how to count. I learned, for example, that "five" is something greater than, say, "four." That said, and ASSUMING that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito will actually join Justices Scalia and Thomas in voting to overturn Roe v. Wade, where, pray tell, is the fifth vote needed to form a majority?
Oh yeah, and while I am on a rant, I also learned that Supreme Court Justices don't always vote the way one thinks they might or even should. Case(s) in point: Justices Stevens, Kennedy and Souter, each one a supporter of Roe, were all appointed by pro-life Republican presidents. Indeed, the first President Bush's Chief of Staff, the former governor of New Hampshire and a lifelong friend of (then) Judge/nominee David Souter, promised conservatives that (now) Justice Souter would be "a home-run." Suffice it to say, Justice Souter is a liberal activist that is not very much different from the man he replaced, Justice William Brennan. (Brennan, arguably the most liberal activist to ever don the black robes of a Federal judge, was, ironically enough, appointed to the Federal Bench by Ike, another Republican president.)
I digress ...
Best case scenario: Those of us that are pro-life are--again, at best!--one vote shy of overturning Roe v. Wade and, thus, bringing about the end to "some" of the legal abortions in the United States. (e.g., The Supreme Court of New Jersey wouldn't move from its unabashedly pro-abortion position even at gunpoint.)
Incidentally, would it be inappropriate or even ghoulish to mention that Justice John Paul Stevens, the longest serving member of the Court and an ardent supporter of Roe, is 86 years-old? :-)

After the next redistribution of electoral college votes (2012?), it will be *very* difficult for a pro-abort politician or party to win a national election.