The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.

The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.

So? 

 

Yupper, a record that we’ve been keeping for almost one hundred and fifty years. Let’s see, now, the ice cap’s been around for a few million years, but the last 150 are the important ones.

 

 

Oddly enough, The New York Times and various environmentalists, most of whom live in high rise apartments far from either pole, have deemed this important enough to point to as further evidence of man’s malevolent impact upon the global habitat. Hmm, I do believe that, since 1900, The New York Times has cried Wolf more times that we’re headed for the next massive ice age than hot house, and that they’ve had more than one Jason Blair scandal, Blair being the “Time’s reporter” who with the approval of the Editor-in-Chief, for over two years filed fantasy as fact, The New York Times is no longer a credible source for print news. This leaves, for serious daily print news, only The Wall Street Journal and her sister, Barron’s, (and, sorry for my faulty memory, and thanks for reminding me, The Christian Science Monitor); and the web, thanks to Google and Ask.com, and some of the other, manageable search engines, for daily print news, but I digress.

 

There are numerous reasons why the measuring of snow and ice for climatological purposes isn’t done at the North Pole; it is done in Antarctica, near the South Pole.

 

One of the many interesting aspects of this rotating ball of molten iron upon which we so precariously abide, is that the land masses form plates, called tectons, which make up the crust of the planet. These tectonic plates float along and bounce off of each other. At the interstices they either subsume each other or separate allowing the molten core to surface to form new crust. One aspect of this is that sea level is not the same around the world when measured by atmospheric pressure. In fact, the Pacific Ocean is about six inches higher than the Atlantic Ocean. This is because the plates consisting of Asia-Minor and South America are moving towards each other, and Africa is both closing the Mediterranean and opening the South Atlantic. The violent turbulence in the Straits of Magellan and the flow of the warm ocean current, starting in the Indian Ocean that ends up in the North Atlantic melting the polar ice cap as it passes Iceland, are proofs of this. Anther attribute of this tectonic movement is that, the water is always moving!

 

Another proof is that the last ice age was, with other factors, caused by the closing of the gap between the North American Plate and the South American Plate at Panama, thereby allowing the polar cap to dramatically expand and upset the then current balance, because the warm current instead of being able to move through what is now the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, had to take the much longer route around South America allowing for additional cooling as it flowed past Antarctica and up through the South Atlantic.

 

As the temperature of water varies, so does its ability to solute chemicals. As an example of this, as the temperature drops, it will retain more CO₂, as it rises, it will hold more salt and less Carbon Dioxide, your quick proofs are in the soda cans in your hands. Soda warm, when opened, fizzes as the CO₂, no longer in solution, escapes; when the soda is cold when opened, you barely hear a pop; notice how salty you can make your pasta water when boiling, as compared to when it’s cool and the salt crystals simply drop to the bottom to await the heating of the water so that they can then dissolve, and if you do your water in this fashion, please note how the corrosive properties of the salt pits and destroys your pot.

 

As any U.S. Navy Submariner will tell you, if you’re fortunate enough to have such a vet in your social circle, at about the depth of 1,000 feet in the open ocean, is a thermal layer, above which is comparatively warm water, and below which is actually very cold water. Part of the cause of this layer is the ability of the sun to heat water. This layer is about where the sun’s impact stops. The chemical solution content above and below this layer is significantly different, partially due to the temperature difference.

 

You may also wish to note that temperature change in water, whether higher or lower, always causes kinetic activity, meaning, that it moves. And, moving water is always abrasive.

 

Another problem with ice formation is kinetic energy. Ice forms readily at 32^o F in still water, but in moving water, the temperature must drop significantly below that, as determined by the velocity of the water and its mineral content. Pure water freezes at that 32^o F whereas soluted water requires lower temperatures to freeze. The quick proof is evident for anyone who lives near a river or creek in the higher latitudes. At the edge of the flow, where the water is immobile, ice forms, whereas in the center of the river, where the current is strongest, the ice does not form, yet the temperature of both the water and the ambient air is the same in both locations.

 

So, the polar ice cap, subject to all of the above variables, is not the place to measure snow and ice. In the alternative, the South Pole has none of these problems. Beneath the South Pole ice layer, lies frozen tundra, not subject to current flow, saline content, nor tectonic activity.

 

Dr. David Bromwich, head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Center and professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Department of Geography of Ohio State University, president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology, chair of the Polar DAAC Advisory Group, member of the Arctic Climate System Study Working Group on Reanalysis and past member of the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, Ph.D., says, “The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from the continental Antarctic.”  and, “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

 

BTW, as of today, 16 October 2008, the reports from the Acrtic Circle show that the glacial masses are increasing. Increasing means that there’s more snow than melt on them. More snow than melt means that we are headed for a cooling period. Hmm, now does Gore’s $100,000,000 profit make sense to you?

 

The Polar Ice-Cap is having its most volatile year on record.

So what?

 

[OK, today is March 1, 2009 and there's an important update to this post: it seems that the original report that the polar ice cap is having a volatile years was wildly, and purportedly innocently, innaccurate. It seems that the people who did the original reporting failed to report a significant number of sensors, thus, seriously understating the actual amount of ice in the cap. After some responsbile people went and rechecked, they found that, in fact, the Polar Ice Cap is EXPANDING. So much for global warming Your Thighness Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Ignorant State.]

Better yet, for those of you who want to know what’s happening first hand, Discovery Channel runs “The Deadliest Catch” which is about crab fishermen in the Bering Sea. Sig Hansen, Phil Harris, The Colburns & Hilstrands, have all said during this last season that the Ice is coming farther and farther south and they have the radar & sounding records to prove it. So, who’ya gonna listen to? Al “never been there” Gore, or the crab fishermen who’re in it months at a time every year?

Daniel Henninger: The Fall of the House of Kennedy

The Fall of the House of Kennedy The battle over who defines the work and institutions that make a nation thrive and grow.· By DANIEL HENNINGER
Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts will not endure unless Republicans clearly understand the meaning of “the machine” that he ran against and defeated.
Yes, it is about a general revulsion at government spending, what is sometimes called “the blob.” But blobs are shapeless things, and in the days ahead we will see the Obama White House work hard to reshape the blob into a deficit hawk. Unless the facade is ripped away, the machine will survive.
The revolt against the machine began with voters’ 2006 ouster of the Republican majority in Congress for making a mockery of fiscal rectitude. An angry electorate then swept Barack Obama into office. Now Mr. Obama is saying voters elected him on the same wave of anger that elected Scott Brown. Sorry, but Messrs. Obama and Brown are not surfing in the same political ocean.
Daniel Henninger discusses the political machine that Scott Brown ran against.
The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy planted the seeds that grew the modern Democratic Party. That year, JFK signed executive order 10988 allowing the unionization of the federal work force. This changed everything in the American political system. Kennedy’s order swung open the door for the inexorable rise of a unionized public work force in many states and cities.
This in turn led to the fantastic growth in membership of the public employee unions—The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the teachers’ National Education Association.
They broke the public’s bank. More than that, they entrenched a system of taking money from members’ dues and spending it on political campaigns. Over time, this transformed the Democratic Party into a public-sector dependency.
Daniel Henninger discusses what Scott Brown’s victory means for Democrats.
They became different than the party of FDR, Truman, Meany and Reuther. That party was allied with the fading industrial unions, which in turn were tethered to a real world of profit and loss.
The states in the North and on the coasts turned blue because blue is the color of the public-sector unions. This tax-and-spend milieu became the training ground for their politicians.
Until the Obama exception, the only recent Democrats electable into the presidency had to be centrist Southerners little known to the country. Every post-Kennedy liberal who tried, failed, including Teddy.
What an irony it is that in the same week the Kennedy labor legacy hit the wall in Massachusetts , the NEA approved a $1 million donation from the union’s contingency fund to the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate. It is this Kennedy legacy, the public union tax and spend machine, that drove blue Massachusetts into revolt Tuesday.
Getty Images

He sent public budgets toward the cliff.
Yes, health care was ground zero, but Massachusetts —like New Jersey , like California , like New York —has been building toward this explosion for years.
According to a study done for the Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth , spending in specific public categories there skyrocketed the past 20 years (1987 to 2007).
Public safety: up 139%; social services, 130%; education, 44%. And of course Medicaid Madness, up 163%, before MassCare kicked in more Medicaid obligations.
But here’s the party’s self-destroying kicker: Feeding the public unions’ wage demands starved other government responsibilities. It ruined our ability to have a useful debate about any other public functions.
Massachusetts ‘ spending fell for mental health, the environment, housing and higher education. The physical infrastructure in blue states is literally falling apart. But look at those public wage and pension-related outlays. Ever upward.

Enter the Obama administration, the first one born and raised inside this public bubble, with zero private-sector Cabinet members. Act one: a $787 billion stimulus bill, which they brag mainly saved state and local jobs. Then came the six-month odyssey for Obama’s $1 trillion health-care bill, dripping with taxes. Independent voters felt like everything was being sucked into a public-sector vortex.
This is why New Jersey ’s Chris Christie won running on nothing. It’s why in California Carly Fiorina is within three points of Sen. Barbara Boxer. It’s why the party JFK enabled, “the machine,” is hitting the wall.
There’s no way out for these Democrats. They made a Faustian bargain 40 years ago with the public unions. For the outlays alone, they’ll get some version of the Obama health-care bill. They’ll also go to the same old “populist anger” well. Scott Brown’s victory has given the GOP a rare, narrow chance to align itself with an electorate that understands its anger. Now the GOP has to find a way to disconnect from a political legacy that smothered governments at all levels and is now smothering the Democratic Party.
Write to henninger@wsj.com

–
Andy Wilson

“God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.” Daniel Webster

Two Helpful Tips

Boy! Is this ever an eye opener. Directly opposite of what we’ve been taught over the years! I can remember in school being told to, “duck and cover” or stand in a doorway during an earthquake. I hope we all remember his survival method if we are ever in an earthquake!!!

EXTRACT FROM DOUG COPP’S ARTICLE ON THE: “TRIANGLE OF LIFE”

My name is Doug Copp. I am the Rescue Chief and Disaster Manager of the American Rescue Team International (ARTI), the world’s most experienced rescue team. The information in this article will save lives in an earthquake.

I have crawled inside 875 collapsed buildings, worked with rescue teams from 60 countries, founded rescue teams in several countries, and I am a member of many rescue teams from many countries…

I was the United Nations expert in Disaster Mitigation for two years. I have worked at every major disaster in the world since 1985, except for simultaneous disasters. >

The first building I ever crawled inside of was a school in Mexico City during the 1985 earthquake. Every child was under its desk. Every child was crushed to the thickness of their bones. They could have survived by lying down next to their desks in the aisles. It was obscene, unnecessary and I wondered why the children were not in
the aisles. I didn’t at the time know that the children were told to hide under something.

Simply stated, when buildings collapse, the weight of the ceilings falling upon the objects or furniture inside crushes these objects, leaving a space or void next to them. This space is what I call the “triangle of life”.

The larger the object, the stronger, the less it will compact. The less the object compacts, the larger the void, the greater the probability that the person who is using this void for safety will not be injured. The next time you watch collapsed buildings, on television, count the “triangles” you see formed. They are everywhere. It is the most common shape, you will see, in a collapsed building.

TIPS FOR EARTHQUAKE SAFETY

1) Most everyone who simply “ducks and covers” WHEN BUILDINGS COLLAPSE are crushed to death. People who get under objects, like desks or cars, are crushed.

2) Cats, dogs and babies often naturally curl up in the fetal position. You should too in an earthquake… It is a natural safety/survival instinct. You can survive in a smaller void. Get next to an object, next to a sofa, next to a large bulky object that will compress slightly but leave a void next to it.

3) Wooden buildings are the safest type of construction to be in during an earthquake. Wood is flexible and moves with the force of the earthquake. If the wooden building does collapse, large survival voids are created. Also, the wooden building has less concentrated, crushing weight. Brick buildings will break into individual bricks. Bricks will cause many injuries but less squashed bodies than concrete slabs.

4) If you are in bed during the night and an earthquake occurs, simply roll off the bed. A safe void will exist around the bed. Hotels can achieve a much greater survival rate in earthquakes, simply by posting a sign on The back of the door of every room telling occupants to lie down on the floor, next to the bottom of the bed during an earthquake.

5) If an earthquake happens and you cannot easily escape by getting out the door or window, then lie down and curl up in the fetal position next to a sofa, or large chair.

6) Most everyone who gets under a doorway when buildings collapse is killed. How? If you stand under a doorway and the doorjamb falls forward or backward you will be crushed by the ceiling above. If the door jam falls sideways you will be cut in half by the doorway. In either case, you will be killed!

7) Never go to the stairs. The stairs have a different “moment of
frequency” (they swing separately from the main part of the building). The stairs and remainder of the building continuously bump into each other until structural failure of the stairs takes place. The people who get on stairs before they fail are chopped up by the stair treads – horribly mutilated. Even if the building doesn’t collapse, stay away from the stairs. The stairs are a likely part of the building to be damaged. Even if the stairs are not collapsed by the earthquake, they may collapse later when overloaded by
fleeing people. They should always be checked for safety, even when the rest of the building is not damaged.
Get Near the Outer Walls Of Buildings Or Outside Of Them If Possible – It is much better to be near the outside of the building rather than the interior. The farther inside you are from the outside perimeter of the building the greater the probability that your escape route will be blocked.

9) People inside of their vehicles are crushed when the road above falls in an earthquake and crushes their vehicles; which is exactly what happened with the slabs between the decks of the Nimitz Freeway… The victims of the San Francisco earthquake
all stayed inside of their vehicles. They were all killed. They could have easily survived by getting out and sitting or lying next to their vehicles. Everyone killed would have survived if they had been able to get out of their cars and sit or lie next to them. All the crushed cars had voids 3 feet high next to them, except for the cars that had columns fall directly across them.

10) I discovered, while crawling inside of collapsed newspaper offices and other offices with a lot of paper, that paper does not compact. Large voids are found surrounding stacks of paper.

Spread the word and save someone’s life… The Entire world is experiencing natural calamities so be prepared!

“We are but angels with one wing, it takes two to fly”.
In 1996 we made a film, which proved my survival methodology to be correct. The Turkish Federal Government, City of Istanbul, University of Istanbul Case Productions and ARTI cooperated to film this practical, scientific test. We collapsed a school and a
home with 20 mannequins inside. Ten mannequins did “duck and cover,” and ten mannequins I used in my “triangle of life” survival method. After the simulated earthquake collapse we crawled through the rubble and entered the building to film and document the results. The film, in which I practiced my survival techniques under directly observable, scientific conditions, relevant to building collapse, showed there would have been zero percent survival for those doing duck and cover. There would likely have been 100 percent survivability for people using my method of the “triangle of life.” This film has been seen by millions of viewers on television in Turkey and the rest of Europe, and it was seen in the USA, Canada and Latin America on the TV program Real TV.

Things Your Burglar Won’t Tell You:

1. Of course I look familiar. I was here just last week cleaning your carpets, painting your shutters, or delivering your new refrigerator.

2. Hey, thanks for letting me use the bathroom when I was working in your yard last week. While I was in there, I unlatched the back window to make my return a little easier.

3. Love those flowers. That tells me you have taste … and taste means there are nice things inside. Those yard toys your kids leave out always make me wonder what type of gaming system they have.

4. Yes, I really do look for newspapers piled up on the driveway. And I might leave a pizza flyer in your front door to see how long it takes you to remove it.

5. If it snows while you’re out of town, get a neighbor to create car and foot tracks into the house. Virgin drifts in the driveway are a dead giveaway.

6. If decorative glas s is part of your front entrance, don’t let your alarm company install the control pad where I can see if it’s set. That makes it too easy.

7. A good security company alarms the window over the sink. And the windows on the second floor, which often access the master bedroom-and your jewelry. It’s not a bad idea to put motion detectors up there too.

8. It’s raining, you’re fumbling with your umbrella, and you forget to lock your door-understandable. But understand this: I don’t take a day off because of bad weather..

9. I always knock first. If you answer, I’ll ask for directions somewhere or offer to clean your gutters. (Don’t take me up on it.)

10. Do you really think I won’t look in your sock drawer? I always check dresser drawers, the bedside table, and the medicine cabinet.

11. Helpful hint: I almost never go into kids’ rooms.

12. You’re right: I won’t have enough time to break into that safe where you keep your valuables. But if it’s not bolted down, I’ll take it with me.

13. A loud TV or radio can be a better deterrent than the best alarm system. If you’re reluctant to leave your TV on while you’re out of town, you can buy a $35 device that works on a timer and simulates the flickering glow of a real television. (Find it at faketv.com.)
14. Sometimes, I carry a clipboard. Sometimes, I dress like a lawn guy and carry a rake. I do my best to never, ever look like a crook.

15. The two things I hate most: loud dogs and nosy neighbors.

16.. I’ll break a window to get in, even if it makes a little noise. If your neighbor hears one loud sound, he’ll stop what he’s doing and wait to hear it again. If he doesn’t hear it again, he’ll just go back to what he was doing. It’s human nature.

17. I’m not complaining, but why would you pay all that money for a fancy alarm system and leave your house without setting it?

18. I love looking in your windows. I’m looking for signs that you’re home, and for flat screen TVs or gaming systems I’d like. I’ll drive or walk through your neighborhood at night, before you close the blinds, just to pick my targets.

19. Avoid announcing your vacation on your Facebook page. It’s easier than you think to look up your address.
20. To you, leaving that window open just a crack during the day is a way to let in a little fresh air. To me, it’s an invitation.

21. If you don’t answer when I knock, I try the door. Occasionally, I hit the jackpot and walk right in.

Sources: Convicted burglars in North Carolina , Oregon , California , and Kentucky; security consultant Chris McGoey, who runs crimedoctor.com; and Richard T. Wright, a criminology professor at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who interviewed 105 burglars for his book Burglars on the Job.
________________________________________
Protection for you and your home

If you don’t have a gun, here’s a more humane way to wreck someone’s evil plans for you. (I guess I can get rid of the baseball bat.)

Wasp Spray
A friend who is a receptionist in a church in a high risk area was concerned about someone coming into the office on Monday to rob them when they were counting the collection. She asked the local police department about using pepper spray and they recommended to her that she get a can of wasp spray instead.

The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to twenty feet away and is a lot more accurate, while with the pepper spray, they have to get too close to you and could overpower you. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. She keeps a can on her desk in the office and it doesn’t attract attention from people like a can of pepper spray would. She also keeps one nearby at home for home protection… Thought this was interesting and might be of use…

Wasp And Hornet Spray
On the heels of a break in and beating that left an elderly woman in Toledo dead, self defense experts have a tip that could save your life.

Val Glinka teaches self-defense to students at Sylvania Southview High School . For decades, he’s suggested putting a can of wasp and hornet spray near your door or bed.

Glinka says, “This is better than anything I can teach them.”

Glinka considers it inexpensive, easy to find, and more effective than mace or pepper spray. The cans typically shoot 20 to 30 feet; so if someone tries to break into your home, Glinka says, “spray the culprit in the eyes”. It’s a tip he’s given to students for decades. It’s also one he wants everyone to hear. If you’re looking for protection, Glinka says look t o the spray.

“That’s going to give you a chance to call the police; maybe get out.” Maintenance doses while waiting for the police are suggested.

Maybe even save a life.
Please share this with all the people in your life.

Definition of torture by one who knows

While I found nothing on this at Snopes, when I Googled it, I found positive references that substantiate it. Powerful words from someone with the personal experience and credentials to counter the current “feel good” fuzzy logic promulgated by those who don’t know that the batteries died in their moral flashlights.
Jim

Subject: Defining Real Torture

I believe this man has the right to say what he believes the way he wants to say it.
This is pretty graphic but is needed reading by all American’s and describes America ’s president pretty well..
Medal of Honor recipient Bud Day Speaks of Torture

I got shot down over N Vietnam in 1967, a Sqdn. Commander. After I returned in 1973..I published 2 books that dealt a lot with “real torture” in Hanoi .. Our make believe president is branding our country as a bunch of torturers when he has no idea what torture is.

As for me, put thru a mock execution because I would not respond… pistol whipped on the head…same event.. Couple of days later… hung by my feet all day. I escaped and a couple of weeks later, I got shot and recaptured. Shot was OK…what happened afterwardswas not.

They marched me to Vinh..put me in the rope trick, trick…almost pulled my arms out of the sockets. Beat me on the head with a little wooden rod until my eyes were swelled shut, and my unshot, unbroken hand a pulp.

Next day hung me by the arms…rebroke my right wrist…wiped out the nerves in my arms that control the hands…rolled my fingers up into a ball… Only left the slightest movement of my L forefinger. So I started answering with some incredible lies.

Sent me to Hanoi strapped to a barrel of gas in the back of a truck.

Hanoi..on my knees….rope trick again. Beaten by a big fool.

Into leg irons on a bed in Heartbreak Hotel.

Much kneeling–hands up at Zoo.

Really bad beating for refusing to condemn Lyndon Johnson.

Several more kneeling events. I could see my knee bone thru kneeling holes.

There was an escape from the annex to the Zoo. I was the Senior Officer of a large building because of escape…they started a mass torture of all commanders.

I think it was July 7, 1969…they started beating me with a car fan belt. In first 2 days I took over 300 strokes…then stopped counting because I never thought I would live thru it.

They continued day-nite torture to get me to confess to a non-existent part in the escape. This went on for at least 3 days. On my knees… fan belting…cut open my scrotum with fan belt stroke. opened up
both knee holes again. My fanny looked like hamburger…I could not lie on my back.

They tortured me into admitting that I was in on the escape…..and that my 2 room-mates knew about it.

The next day I denied the lie.

They commenced torturing me again with 3- 6- or 9 strokes of the fan belt every day from about July 11 or 12rh..to 14 October 1969. I continued to refuse to lie about my roommates again.

Now, the point of this is that our make-believe president has declared to the world that we (U.S..) are a bunch of torturers…Thus it will be OK to torture us next time when they catch us…..because that is what the U.S. does.

Our make-believe president is a know nothing fool who thinks that pouring a little water on some one’s face, or hanging a pair of womens pants over an Arabs head is TORTURE. He is a meathead.

I just talked to MOH holder Leo Thorsness, who was also in my squadron, in jail…as was John McCain…and we agree that McCain does not speak for the POW group when he claims that Al Gharib was torture…or that “water boarding” is torture.

Our president and those fools around him who keep bad mouthing our great country are a disgrace to the United States . Please pass this info on to Sean Hannity. He is free to use it to point out the stupidity of the claims that water boarding…which has no after effect…is torture. If it got the Arab to cough up the story about how he planned the attack on the twin towers in NYC…hurrah for the guy who poured the water.

“Bud” Day, Medal Of Honor Recipient

George Everett “Bud” Day, born February 24, 1925, is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot who served during the Vietnam War. He is often cited as being the most decorated U.S. service member since General Douglas MacArthur, having received some seventy decorations, a majority for actions in combat. Day is a recipient of the Medal of Honor.
————–
Please pass on to your family and friends!

McCain is President — Palin in as VP

McCain Elected President – Palin in as V.P.

“No Smoke ; Buffalo!?!” In response to an email on the call-in talk show, www.blogtalkradio.com/just-plain-bill-show, on last week’s show, I said that Pelosi was president. I erred. And not by a little, but by a lot and of the responses received, two struck home so strongly that …
McCain is President by default. By running an ineligible candidate, McCain – Palin ran unopposed.
How did this come about?
Ok, last week I pointed out that, according to Indonesian Adoption Laws, Obama is both an Indonesian Citizen and Muslim, therefore, ineligible for both the U.S. Senate and the U. S. Presidency. There’s a copy of them here on my blog: www.justplainbill.wordpress.com . Then I hypothesized that, therefore there was no election, and Pelosi becomes President. Shows what over-thinking the problem does. I also posted the Barnett vs Obama Carter decision allowing it to go forward, and then how Judge Carter allowed the Rules of Civil Procedure R 12B Standing motion by the U. S. Attorneys, thereby throwing the case out based on the Spurious and Incorrect precedential rulings of The Supremes , forcing the Hon. Orly Taitz to appeal to, of all the Marxist Judicial Legislators, those uncrowned Dunderheads, The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Sigh, so much for justice.
Now, as Al Gore improperly got permission to sue in Federal Court back in 2000, The Supremes must now live by that error and allow both McCain and Palin, STANDING TO SUE OBAMA AS TO HIS ELIGIBILITY!!!! Thus, forcing all of these questions as to his citizenship to be answered in open court as WE, THE PEOPLE are entitled to.
Go figure!
Yes, Butch, consulto ego, the true quote is, “No S***, Buffalo!?!” but I’m trying my damndest to keep this stuff Family Friendly.
Standing: A party’s right to make a legal claim or seek judicial enforcement of a duty or right. To have standing in federal court, a plaintiff must show (1) that the challenged conduct has caused the plaintiff actual injury, and (2) that the interest sought to be protected is within the zone of interests meant to be regulated by the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question. Black’s 9th Edition p 1536
America’s greatest usurpers of Citizens’ Rights through Judicial Legislation

Sodahead Unicorn1 Response 24 Jan 10

We, the people, … .

Yupper, WE have so much in common with each other that, if you look around your neighborhood, the stores where you shop, where you work, visit, worship, socialize, you will realize that, in all likelihood you’ve not only never seen a crime committed, but even if you saw one, unless it was violent, you probably would not even recognize one. Have you ever witnessed a shoplifter but still been in doubt as to whether or not that person was actually stealing something? Maybe a gasoline drive off?

It’s not we the people whom we have to worry about. It’s the political managers who are there not to serve, but to line their own pockets either directly or indirectly through pork to associates and then there’s some kind of kick-back. Pelosi is a millionaire, I am not; Reid is a millionaire, I am not; McCain is a millionaire, I am not; and the list goes on. The Kennedys’ & Obamas’ children go to private prep schools and Ivy League Universities, our children do not, Chelsea Clinton went to private prep schools, an Ivy League University and has a SIX FIGURE HEDGE FUND MANAGER job at Merrill Lynch (you know, that hated Wall Street firm that had to be bailed out), and not only that, but our schools’ standards are set by these people and they have become merely avenues of wealth distribution to those people’s associates. (I don’t believe that these kinds of people are actually capable of having friends. Check your dictionary for the meanings of these words.)

Consider, how many schools have vending machines filled with caffeine and sugar and gingko stimulants which, FOR A PRICE, are there for our children to abuse yet those special interests become millionaires soaking up our money and dosing our children such that they get diagnosed with ADD or ADH or something else. Who posted the candidates for the school board members who profit from these sorts of corruptions? Who gets the contracts to provide services for the water commission or the road commission or the Utility Board? Read Palin’s book if you want to know actually what happened in Alaska and how she fixed it. (And why she didn’t answer Couric’s juvenile question about, what do you read? Have you ever heard her or any of the others ask BarryHil what they read? or Reid or Pelosi? because they obviously don’t even read the legislation that they’re trying to pass.)

Does it take a village to raise a child or a family?

Have you ever watched, “The Tigger Movie”? The answer is there, oddly enough. Like most of us, I’ve been forced to watch these more than once. (And learned that there’s a lot of Zen & Tao in Milne’s work, so much so that I’ve actually gone out and bought the books to read for my own edification!)

Our political managers are so out of touch that BarryHil are still screaming that poverty is the cause of Jihad, yet all 20 WTC bombers had college degrees or medical or engineering degrees. The underpants bomber is a college graduate. Those that are blowing themselves up in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan are doing so because bin Laden or Hamas or Hezbelloh are paying their families $25,000 as weregild. Last month The Wall Street Journal reported that a “Palestinian Charity” (Hamas) posted an ad in the Palestinian paper offering $1,500,000.00 to anybody who turned over a live Israeli soldier. Yet, BarryHil’s priority is that the Internet must be open and free. Think on why they want this instead of democracy and freedom. (For a primer on Islam & Jihad, download and listen to the 7 October & 14 October broadcasts of The Justplainbill Show, www.blogtalkradio.com/just-plain-bill-show).

Consider how the media has been pushing climate change and how the scientist sources of that have been proven frauds, yet BarryHil are still pushing it down our throats with the help of Katie Couric &al. For the truth on climate change, The Justplainbill show has a primer on it or, you can check out the truth in these books: Lawrence Solomon, “The Deniers”, and Chris Horner “Red Hot Lies”. Consider that the Stockholm Convention includes on its agenda the creation of a commission with powers to police and punish all signatories’ businesses. Talk about taxation without representation! Talk about a complete abrogation of the United States Constitution and a complete sell-out of our rights!

For a basic primer on government and politics, rent or buy the BBC series, “Yes, Minister” and its sequel, “Yes, Prime Minister”. You will laugh through your ironic tears.

For an actual correction of the political incompetence and corruption buy, read and discuss with everyone that you know, “Three Strikes” available at: admin@vervestar.com.

The situation will not change until WE get involved, educate ourselves, arm ourselves (philosophically as well as truly) and change it. That’s what happens in every revolution.

Power comes out the barrel of a gun, real or virtual. If you are not willing to stand in front of the tanks like that unnamed hero in Tianamin Square, (a virtual gun to the head of the Maoists, as opposed to a real one, because if he’d become a martyr, the uprising would have been violent and bloody, and the revolutionaries would have been armed), educate yourself by reading Tom Paine (Common Sense & The Rights of Man), Jefferson (when was the last time that you actually read “The Declaration of Independence” — “When in the course of human events … “?), Patrick Henry, Madison, and even that High Federalist Alexander Hamilton. For starters, read Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 452″, Orwell’s “1984″ & his “Animal Farm”, all three are under 150 pp but, oh, so readily describe today’s political crises here in the West. And, these were all written before 1950!

If you can only talk, or forward emails, then you are a flatulent impotent!

Vote Palin/Marinovich.

Vote Whig!

Semper Fi!

Barnett v Obama, coming soon to a Fed Court

Orly before Judge Carter: Sept. 8, 2009
September 9, 2009 by John Charlton

CARTER SAYS REPEATEDLY THE CASE WILL GO FORWARD
Reported in person by Vivian Rixen

Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.
(Sept. 8, 2009: Santa Ana, California) — In a case watched intensely throughout America, Federal District Judge David. O. Carter, of the Southern Division, held a Motion hearing for the case Pamela Barnett, et al., vs. Barack H. Obama, et al., pleaded by Attorney Orly Taitz, esq., and the U.S. Attorney General, CA District, respectively.

The hearing finally took place about 11 A.M., local time, due to a change in rooms, ordered by Judge Carter to accomodate the large numbers of visitors.

Carter appears to want the case to ‘play out’. He said that the American people are surrounded by rumors of their President and should not have to live with this… Additionally, the military who are risking their lives deserve to know they have a legitimate Commander-In-Chief. Carter repeated this about 3 times during the circa 60 minute hearing.

Judge Carter also went on to say that this case should not be dragged out for months or years and people deserve to know, to which the audience responded with rounds of applause.

Dr. Taitz attempted to have Lucas Daniel Smith heard by the judge, and have his testimony on record. Dr. Taitz flew him out for the hearing, and told the court that he was receiving death threats. In addition she mentioned to the court that another person with information about the case was found dead. Judge Carter, however, who wanted to follow proper procedures recommended his deposition be taken this week instead.

To this the U.S. Attorneys objected. To which Judge Carter responded, saying, “Why would you have a problem with his deposition taken while he’s in town, I would think you would like to know where you stand on this, to know what your dealing with…!” (Carter said this about 3 times to the Gov attorneys).

The Government Attorneys, from Los Angeles, had no real excuse for not wanting to take his deposition, they simply did not want to take the deposition of the guy who submitted the Kenya BC !

Dr. Taitz insisted on a prompt deposition, out of fear for the life of Mr. Smith. Members of the audience, later speculated, that it appeared the U.S. Attorneys wanted as much time as necessary for those who would want to harm Mr. Smith.

Then Judge Carter mentioned he had a mafia drug trial in December and wanted to get the Obama case over quickly as the America people and military deserve an answer! So he scheduled a January-February pre-trial?

Taitz’s supporters showed surprise and gratitude when they heard Carter schedule the trial for January. Contrariwise, the Gov. attorneys were almost speechless. And then voiced an objection to the date of the trial, to which Judge Carter responded: “I can be here at 7 AM or have court at 6 PM or 7 PM; I will make myself available ‘at any hour of the day’ and read motions on the weekends, I have no problem with that.”

The Government attorneys had filed a Motion to Dismiss, based on rule 12B, on Friday, September 4th. During the hearing, today, the US Attorneys attempted to present the Motion for hearing; but the judge refused, saying that they had to observe proper procedures, and file it downstairs (in the Federal Court House), for it to be be logged in, so as for it to be forwarded to him upstairs in the proper manner.

Judge Carter showed noticeable annoyance at the US Attorneys for filing a Motion to Dismiss in such proximity to this hearing; and ruled that this Motion would be heard on Oct 5th.. However, Carter said that 12B Motions for Dismissal are not always effected, and that he did not expect that such a motion would result in dismissal of this case, though he would follow proper procedure and hear it.

Judge Carter also asked Dr. Taitz to reduce the number of individuals cited as defendants; and seemingly indicated to Taitz that Barack Hussein Obama would be sufficient.

No parties for defense were there. Cameras were not allowed in the Court Room.

It remains to be seen, with the fairness of Judge Carter so evident, whether the US Attorneys will move for a change of venue, to get the case put in the hands of a Judge more amenable to the Obama Administration.

As one American citizen in the audience later remarked: “Carter has given me and probably millions of us little American’s a restored faith in America and our Justice System/Judges.”

Viet Nam Vets Virtual Wall

Viet Nam era Veterans–Virtual Wall–

——————————————————————————–

A friend sent me the link below which is a virtual wall of all those lost during the Viet Nam war with the names, bio’s and other information on our lost comrades. It is a very interesting link, and those us who served in that timeframe and lost friends or family can look them up on this site. Pass it on to other veterans who you think would like this. First click on a state……then when it opens ………a city….then name…….then ………..it should show ya a picture of the person or at least his bio and medals…… …….

http://www.virtualwall.org/iStates.htm

Talk Show Outline Posted Here

Outline 10 Feb 2010

www.blogtalkradio.com/just-plain-bill-show

CALL IN TO MAKE A COMMENT OR

TO START A DIALOGUE

Economy:

            1. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac are still in trouble

                        a. So, the Rule of Law as interpreted by Soetoro-Obama/ Pelosi /Reid fails again; Bush II another loser on the economy

                                    i. Once again, no difference between the “ins” and the “outs”

                        b. By not allowing bankruptcies, now the whole world is collapsing

                                    i. Japan has ALWAYS been isolationist and anti-free trade, as are China, Mexico, Europe, Russia, India and everybody else

                                    ii. why has the United States always been the one to give?

            2. Jobs, there ain’t none!

                        a. Why are those states that have allowed non-union auto plants in doing so well? Toyota in Mississippi; Honda in Tennessee; Kia in North Carolina, Hyundai in Alabama, &c

                        b. Texas, no personal income tax; no personal property tax

                        c. The Cryer Memorandum, the Federal Government does not have the authority to tax personal income

            3. With the Federal Debt now at $13,750,000,000,000.00, or over $56,000/ man-woman-child, but not illegal, in the U.S. owing

                        a. Interest on this is over $500B; Entire defense budget is only $480B

                                    i. Pay it off by stopping all the port?

                                    ii. Should the U.S. file bankruptcy?

                                                A. Argentina/Chile? Economy shrank by 17% causing food riots and anarchy

                                                B. When Weimar did it, Hitler rose to power

                                                C. When Central American countries did it, creditor countries invaded and took over the forced collection of the debt

            4. Euro debt and Greece

Business

            1. Toyota, so much for quality

                        a. The Media always went after US companies, why has Toyota been ignored? (investigative reporters always went after US Co’s, why has the Toyota double issue not been discovered?)

            2. $5K tax credit? Stupidity upon stupidity, don’t any of these people understand that no “incentive” can take the place of sales? Businesses can only hire when sales offset the new personnel costs

            3. Diversity: Diversity Destroys

                        a. on the job

                        b. in the schools

                        c. in the boardrooms

                        d. in the military

Government:

            1. Let’s talk about the Czars

                        i. list and talk

                        ii. unconstitutional

Terrorism

            1. All the terror that not fit to print in the NY Times or on CNN

                        i. Holder, Marxist or Ayres Shill?

            2. difference between Military Tribunal & Fed Court

            3. repeat Nuremburg & Tokyo War Crime’s Trials

Health Care:

            1. Pelosi & Reid making deal to first vote through the Senate Bill, then modify as time goes on; once the entitlement is in, it’s gonna STAY in!

            2. And, let’s not forget the Supremes and how it will be interpreted

            3. James Degerome and A Cure for the Health Care Malady, remind everybody to download the original and also last week’s show

            4. Still, the usual problems apply

                        a. where are all of these new nurses and doctors going to come from, Cuba?

            5. Continue with expense

            6. Repeat how the British Health Care system ignores those over 63!!!

            7. Canada the same

            8. Talk about the oversight committees and who sits on them

            9. Remind everyone about Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, and Orwell’s 1984  and Animal Farm:

                        a. Winston Smith & the book; Saul Alinsky

                        b. All animals are equal; some animals are more equal than others

                        c. End of 451 is a nuclear holocaust

Haiti

                        a. Castro & Chavez: “The United States has invaded Haiti with the intent to take it over”

                        b. How many billions have we already poured into Haiti?

                        c. Corruption, last week ‘foreigners’ need new papers, this week it looks like the papers were in order, but where’s the hyaung hyu?

Climate Change:

            1. Repeat both books: Lawrence Solomon’s The Deniers and Chris Horner’s Red Hot Lies

            2. Download Primer from here and review

Upcoming shows:

            1. Primer on Business hopefully 17 Feb 2010

            2. Authors

            3. 2^nd Amendment Special

            4. 1^st Amendment Special

– fine –

Veterans’ Charities Rated by Wash Post

Some Nonprofits Shortchange Troops, Watchdog Group Says

By Philip Rucker, Washington Post Staff Writer

Americans gave millions of dollars in the past year to veterans charities
designed to help troops wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, but several of the
groups spent relatively little money on the wounded, according to a leading
watchdog organization and federal tax filings.

Eight veterans charities, including some of the nation’s largest, gave less
than a third of the money raised to the causes they champion, far below the
recommended standard, the American Institute of Philanthropy says in a
report. One group passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, the report
says. Another paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in
compensation and benefits last year, a Washington Post analysis of tax
filings showed.

Richard H. Esau Jr., executive director of the Military Order of the Purple
Heart Service Foundation, based in Annandale, said the cost of fundraising
limits how much his group can spend on charitable causes. ‘Do you have any
idea how much money it costs to advertise? It’s unbelievable the amount of
money it takes to advertise in the print and electronic media,’ he said.
‘I’m very proud of what we do, and we certainly do look after everybody.
F or no F, the point is we do the right thing by veterans.’

Borochoff said many veterans charities are ‘woefully inefficient,’ spending
large sums on costly direct-mail advertising. ‘They oversolicit. They love
to send out a lot of trinkets and stickers
and greeting cards and flags and things that waste a lot of money that they
get ittle return on,’ said Borochoff, who plans to testify before Congress
today.

The philanthropy institute gave F’s to 12 of the 29 military charities
reviewed and D’s to eight. Five were awarded A-pluses, including the Fisher
House Foundation in Rockville, which the institute says directs more than 90
percent of its income to charitable causes.

One group received an A, and one received an A-minus.

Jim Weiskopf, spokesman for Fisher House, said the charity does not use
direct-mail advertising. ‘As soon as you do direct mail, your fundraising
expenses go up astronomically,’ he said.

One egregious example, Borochoff said, is Help Hospitalized Veterans, which
was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, a veteran of the Army Finance Corps and
a San Diego real estate developer. The charity, which provides therapeutic
arts and crafts kits to hospitalized veterans, reported income of $71.3
million last year and spent about one-third of that money on charitable
work, the philanthropy institute said.

In its tax filings, Help Hospitalized Veterans reported paying more than $4
million to direct-mail fundraising consultants. The group also has run
television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat
Sajak and other celebrities.

Bennett Weiner, chief operating officer of the Better Business Bureau, said
the agency has 20 standards for reviewing charities, including that a
charity’s fundraising and overhead costs not exceed 35 percent of total
contributions.

The American Institute of Philanthropy, a leading charity watchdog, issued a
report card this month for 29 veterans and military charities. Letter
grades were based largely on the charities’ fundraising costs and the
percentage of money raised that was spent on charitable activities.

Air Force Aid Society (A+)

American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation (F)

American Veterans Coalition (F)

American Veterans Relief Foundation (F)

AMVETS National Service Foundation (F)

Armed Services YMCA of the USA (A-)

Army Emergency Relief (A+)

Blinded Veterans Association (D)

Disabled American Veterans (D)

Disabled Veterans Association (F)

Fisher House Foundation (A+)

Freedom Alliance (F)

Help Hospitalized Veterans/Coalition to Salute America’s Heroes (F)

Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (A+)

Military Order of the Purple Heart Service Foundation (F)

National Military Family Association (A)

National Veterans Services Fund (F)

National Vietnam Veterans Committee (D)

Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society (A+)

NCOA National Defense Foundation (F)

Paralyzed Veterans of America (F)

Soldiers’ Angels (D)

United Spinal Association’s Wounded Warrior Project (D)

USO (United Service Organization) (C+)

Veterans of Foreign Wars and Foundation (C-)

Veterans of the Vietnam War & the Veterans Coalition (D)

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (D)

VietNow National Headquarters (F)

World War II Veterans Committee (D)

Cap and Trade Bill: Death to the Middle Class

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington ! This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA …. What are they trying to accomplish?

A License required for your house…no longer just for cars and mobile homes…..

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced. The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one is excluded. However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this: A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right. The caveat is
(there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (“mobile homes”) are included. In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator. To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured. Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements. Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner. If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act. The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings. However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time. Sect. 202 Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America . Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements IF you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants. You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants. Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.” Sect. 204 Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year…

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label. And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year. But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time. Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program. Sect. 304 Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d) that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

For additioal info on Cap & Trade, click on http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=A+License+required+for+your+home-+Cap+and+Trade &btnG=Google+Search

PC Prosecuter goes after LEO doing his job

To ensure delivery, please add alerts@patriotupdate.com to your address book.

My name is Rhonda Edmondson and my husband is Sgt. Chris Edmondson, an 18-year veteran of the Raton, New Mexico Police Department.

I’ve sent you a photo of our family. It was taken just last Christmas.

That’s Chris holding our son, Aidin.

Aidin is four — and so proud that his Daddy is “a police man who helps people.”

But if bureaucrats here in New Mexico have their way, Chris won’t be able to hold our little boy again for two years.

Because the New Mexico Attorney General is trying to throw Chris in jail.

Even though my husband is an innocent man!

Please, let me explain.

Chris is a decorated officer who has received the Gallantry Star, the Lifesaver Award, dozens of written commendations, and even helped capture one of America’s “Most Wanted” criminals.

Less then, two years ago, 4:15am, November 18, 2007, Chris and two other officers received a call for police to investigate a fight at a nearby house.

When they arrived, they found a 25-year old man named Jesse Saenz acting strangely.

Saenz was on all fours, yelling and screaming, and pulling up grass and throwing it. Before that, he had been slamming a chain link fence against cars in the driveway. Officer Leonard Baca started to escort Saenz to the patrol car. And that’s when things got ugly.

Saenz began fighting the officers — who immediately handcuffed him. But Saenz became so violent that they couldn’t get him into the patrol car.

Saenz was wearing sharp-pointed boots and began kicking violently.

Chris and the other officers tried to pull them off his feet — but couldn’t get close enough without getting kicked.

As the senior officer, Chris finally ordered the officers to “bump” Saenz with a taser gun.

The taser had absolutely no effect on Saenz. He kept yelling and kicking.

As Chris told me later, Saenz was “wildly out of control.”

Chris ordered the officers to taser Saenz again. But it still had no effect as he kept kicking and screaming at them.

Finally Chris managed to get the boots off Saenz and push him into the back seat of the squad car.
Amazingly, Saenz still managed to kick Officer Dominguez on the wrist, breaking his watch and injuring his wrist.

As they neared the station, Saenz finally stopped struggling. Officer Baca thought he had passed out.
But when they opened the door, they realized that Saenz wasn’t breathing.

An emergency crew performed CPR. But Saenz died on the way to the hospital.
Chris was devastated.

But he knows he did everything he could to protect his officers from a violent and dangerous suspect.
New Mexico police regulations clearly state that officers are authorized to use tasers on “violent persons under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.”

An autopsy revealed that Jesse Saenz had high levels of cocaine , nemzoylecgonine, cocaethylene and hydroxzione in his blood.

That explains why he was acting so wildly.

It even concluded that Saenz most likely died due to “cocaine intoxication.”

But Jesse Saenz’s family didn’t agree.
They accused Chris and the other officers of being “racist cops” who tasered Jesse Saenz because he was Hispanic…

…even though Officer Dominguez and Officer Baca are Hispanic themselves!

They painted their car windows with messages like “Justice for Jesse,” “RIP Jesse” and “I’m Mexican, am I next?”

They held memorial events and parades.

And eventually the powerful Saenz family got what they wanted:

Chris, Officer Dominguez, and Officer Baca have all been indicted for the involuntary manslaughter of Jesse Saenz.

All three of them have been placed on administrative leave. And if convicted, they will all be sent to prison.

Sent to prison just for doing their jobs!

Chris and I are still in shock.

And our lives will never be the same.

Last year after many prayers we had decided to adopt a little girl and boy.

But after Chris was indicted, we were told we are no longer allowed to adopt them.

Even worse, we don’t feel safe here in our own town.

The Saenz family has been very vocal about their hate for the police — Officer Dominguez and Officer Baca’s children were even threatened at school.

So Chris and I don’t even go into town anymore unless we’re armed.

I’m doing my best to stay strong for Chris and Aidin, but it’s hard to do when I’m so scared myself.

Especially when I think about the trial.

I’m worried that the Saenz family has the deck stacked against us.

For instance, there were other witnesses who saw Jesse Saenz out of control the night of his arrest – but they were allegedly threatened by the Saenz family and refuse to come forward.

Even worse, NO interviews with the medics who treated Saenz were ever conducted.

NO interviews with the Emergency Room doctors and nurses were held.

And Jesse Saenz’s past medical records have NEVER been examined.

I feel so hopeless… scared… and angry.

Is this the thanks my husband gets for risking his life as a police officer for the past 18 years?

All he’s ever done is try to keep the people of New Mexico safe and protected.

Now I don’t know what will happen. Will Chris be torn away from Aidin and me? Will he be sent to a prison here in New Mexico, where the inmates despise cops? And if Chris survives the trial, how on earth will we ever pay our legal bills?

So far I have only one hope.

You see, The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund has offered to help Chris — and I can honestly tell you that these patriots are the best friend a police officer could ever have.

When I called the Chairman of LELDF, he and his Board Members , including former Attorney General Ed Meese and former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights William Bradford Reynolds , said they would do whatever they could to help us.

Now they are trying to raise money on Chris’ behalf — to pay for attorneys, expert witnesses, and legal research.

I truly believe that God is sending Chris and me a lifeline through LELDF .

They are the only light at the end of the tunnel for us right now.
Chris and I aren’t wealthy people.

Our friends and neighbors even held a spaghetti dinner fundraiser to try to raise money for the trial. But we are still short by more than $100,000.

And that’s why I’m about to ask you the hardest question I’ve ever asked anyone in my life.

Could you send a contribution today to LELDF to help Chris and the other officers?

I know it’s a bold request. But I’m so frightened for Chris — I will do whatever I can to help him.
As his wife, I’ve got to try. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF) is a non-profit organization so your gift is tax-deductible.

Any amount — $25, $50, $75, $100, $250, or even $500 — will help. Just your $25 could be the difference between Chris coming home to me and Aidin…

… or going to prison for a “crime” he didn’t commit.

Please, if you have just a few dollars you can spare today — will you help my husband and these other brave officers?

The state of New Mexico has unlimited funds to stack the deck against Chris in court. But Chris and I can rely only on the generous hearts of people like you.

Thank you for reading my letter.

I will never be able to put into words how much your support means to us.

Yours truly,

Mrs. Rhonda Edmondson

P.S. If what my husband did was manslaughter than sooner or later every good police officer in this country will be behind bars just for doing their jobs!

For Information about Advertising, Click Here
www.patriotupdate.com

Death of the United States; Marxists takeover

You have to be kidding Me! This is Obama at his Best.

I had a former employee call me earlier today inquiring about a job, and at the end of the conversation he gave me his phone number. I asked the former employee if this was a new cell phone number and he told me yes this was his “Obama phone.” I asked him what an “Obama phone” was and he went on to say that welfare recipients are now eligible to receive
(1) a FREE new phone and
(2) approx 70 minutes of FREE minutes every month.
I was a little skeptical so I Googled it and low and behold he was telling the truth. TAX PAYER MONEY IS BEING REDISTRIBUTED TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS FOR FREE CELL PHONES. This program was started earlier this year. Enough is enough, the ship is sinking and it’s sinking fast. The very foundations that this country was built on are being shaken. The age old concepts of God, family, and hard work have flown out the window and are being replaced with “Hope and Change” and “Change we can believe in.” You can click on the link below to read more about the “Obama phone”…just have a barf bag ready.

https://www.safelinkwireless.com/EnrollmentPublic/home.aspx

If you can’t click on this link, copy it and paste it into the address line on your internet browser.

Don Kauble

660-287-0504

IN GOD WE TRUST

MSgt Troy Mitchell, USMC ret Murdered

In Memory of

MSgt Troy G. Mitchell
Died: Oct 29, 2009

November 1, 2009
Family, Friends, & Marines,

Arrangements have been finalized to lay to rest MSgt Troy G. Mitchell (USMC Retired).

A service will be held Wednesday, 4 Nov 2009 at 1:00 PM.

The place & location of this service is:
Englewood Baptist Church
2239 N Highland Ave,
Jackson, TN 38305.
(Located off I-40 Exit 82)

There will be no open public viewing for Troy. All wishing to pay their respects are asked to proceed promptly to Englewood Baptist Church no later than 12: 45 PM on 4 Nov 2009. Following the ceremony MSgt Troy Mitchell will be laid to rest at the Mitchell Family Cemetery with full military honors. This portion of the service is for Family, Close Family Friends & Troy’s Marines (Also any and all military, police or emergency care personnel who want to render honors). This private burial location will be announced at the service, and a vehicle procession to MSgt Mitchells resting place, will depart immediately follow the service.

The family cannot thank enough the support, generosity and out pouring of love & respect from the Jackson Tennessee community and many who have sent their prayers, support and condolences from across the nation. The family cannot possibly meet and thank everyone, before, during or after this service. Please know we will try to follow up in the following weeks and accept our “Thank You” now for your loving support.

Donation In lieu of Flowers can be directed to:

The Troy G Mitchell Fund
Patriot Equity Credit Union
59 Directors Row
Jackson TN 38305
Phone (731) 668-1155

Flight Info & Options :

Flights into the area can be either Memphis Airport (Airport Code MEM) or Nashville Airport (BNA).

Memphis only has an off airport rental car facility which adds about 20 minutes to the total travel time. There are no on site rental car counters, you must book on line and or take the shuttle to the rental car off site area of choice. The drive time to Jackson TN once you have your car, is about 1 hour 10-15 minutes of interstate driving on I-240 and I-40.

Nashville on the other hand is about an 1 hour 25-30 minutes drive time from Jackson TN but has an on airport rental car pick up and drop off site. So the total travel time is about equal in time spent getting to Jackson TN, although the drive time is a bit longer. Leaving you with two options for travel and airline services.

There are various hotels to in Jackson TN to include a Holiday Inn, a La Quinta Inn, a Double Tree and other value hotels. Staying anywhere between Exit 76 & 82 off I-40 will put you less than 10 minutes from the church location.

Respectfully Posted For the Mitchell Family,
Joe Settelen
MGySgt USMC Retired

October 29, 2009
Friends, Marines…All who have been so supportive these last few days…

Tonight Joey Mitchell, Troy’s oldest son just called me to tell me Troy’s body finally gave out and he was pronounced gone just a short bit ago. So we lost Troy from this earth. But Troy, as always….giving to the very end, wanted his organs to go to help others and he will give life to six or seven others in his passing. His body was in excellent health as you would expect of a 22 year veteran and retired reconnaissance Marine. My friends, we lost one of our very best recon Marines, fathers, husbands, and just an all around wonderful men tonight.

You can’t even put into words the loving devotion Troy had for all of mankind. A true national hero, quiet & humble, smart and sharp, survivor of some of the toughest military training, wars, deployments, reconnaissance patrols, and sensitive special operations missions. He was the real deal, a full instrument of justice in which he hunted down those who seek to destroy the good in life and put away those who prey on the weak in this world. Troy simply was the best man I have ever met and had the privilege to know in my life. He saved me from myself, at a point when I was at the lowest time ever in my Marine Corps career. Just like he trained and mentored many of you, he brought me back. He helped me re-find me center, my purpose. He rebuilt my courage, my faith, and my pride in being a Marine, a Christian a father. He picked me up when I had a failed mission, and showed me why we all have to keep going, keep being there for one another, for the mission, for the betterment of all of mankind. There just wasn’t a better person in my life than MSgt Troy G. Mitchell.

I know many of you feel the same and were mentored by Troy. You couldn’t not be touched by him as he was the only Marine to date that I know of in reconnaissance to have served in every Marine recon unit to include active & reserve commands. I know all of you, like me, will miss him greatly. But we all know right where he is and you can count on seeing him again at your passing from this earth. No matter what your belief system is right now.

In the next several days I will put out some final word on his funeral arrangements. Joey believes it will be sometime next week. There will be more to follow. What I do know is that a Memorial Fund has been set up for proceeds in Lieu of flowers if you would like to help the family. The account number is unavailable to me this evening but the account is set up and named:

The Troy G Mitchell Fund
Patriot Equity Credit Union
59 Directors Row
Jackson TN 38305

Phone (731) 668-1155 for more info on a routing number for electronic funds transfers and sending of checks & donations. I’ll follow up with the bank and update this information tomorrow AM.

Friends, Marines….I will head out to be with the Mitchell family and meet Wren their son, who is still working his way back from Iraq tomorrow. I’ll link up with Wren in Memphis TN. I’ll then work with the family on finalizing the arrangements and putting the word out. Joey said it most likely would not be before Saturday that they will have further information, as they wade through the National Cemetery options and the family gets together to decide how things will be arranged to honor Troy. He was the VP of the local Marine Corps League, a Force Recon Association Member, a co-chair to the Locksmithing Association, and very active in the community of Jackson TN. So there will be plenty of support available to help with the arrangements. I’ll keep you posted.

Thanks to MGySgt Ron Wetherbee for aligning the SOF Care Coalition Support, and MGySgt Rich Barrett for putting together the contacts to the local TN VA and Marine Corps League for me, and MGySgt Chad Ramsey & Carl Froisy for getting the word out and running interference within the active duty reconnaissance community. Brothers, I couldn’t do much at all as a former action guy, without your support. Thank You.

Please continue your generous support. Scan the emails lines and please “Forward”, I spent a long time updating the address list but I am sure I missed some folks.

Semper Fi
Joe Settelen (MGySgt Ret)

Grief, shock over locksmith Mitchell’s death
By MARIANN MARTIN
Jackson Sun
31 OCT 2009

Jerry Price only met Troy Mitchell once, but he remembers his kindness. The men had lunch at the same time at Catfish Cabin this summer. Price had a latch on his truck topper that needed a key and noticed Mitchell was a locksmith.

“I walked up and asked him if he thought he could help me,” Price said Friday. “He went through his keys and found one that worked. When I asked him how much I owed him, he refused to take any money.

“He was such a nice guy, and he did not deserve this.”
Price’s story was one of dozens shared from all across the country Friday as Troy Mitchell’s family and friends mourned his death.

Mitchell, 44, died about 11:20 p.m. Thursday at Jackson-Madison County General Hospital after being shot in the face Wednesday morning while working on a car at Guardian Courts Apartments on Hollywood Drive.

Police said they believe the motive was robbery. No arrests have been made.
Mitchell was a retired 22-year Marine combat veteran who served in several conflicts, including Bosnia and Iraq. He was recognized for his service with a Purple Heart, a Bronze Star and other citations.

The family moved to Jackson in 2004, and Mitchell opened his locksmith business soon after that. He and his wife, Kelly, have seven sons ranging in age from 5 to 27.
His second son, Ren Mitchell, is serving in Iraq and is on his way home to be with the family.
Funeral arrangements have not been made. The family plans to donate Mitchell’s organs.

Coming to terms
Mitchell’s father-in-law, Harvey Lovelace, said Friday morning that it was impossible to find words to express the family’s emotional state.

“The hurt is somewhere else. It has not really sunk in yet,” he said, speaking with difficulty as he tried to control his emotions.

Lovelace said he served in the military with Mitchell’s father in North Dakota, when Mitchell was 14.
“He is more like a son than a son-in-law,” Lovelace said. “We were very fortunate for our children to marry someone … easy to love.”

‘A major loss’
Friday afternoon, fellow Marine Ron Wetherbee said Mitchell’s death was devastating to the entire Marine family.

“This is a major loss for the Marine Corps,” said Wetherbee, a senior enlisted Marine advisor at Camp Lejeune, N.C. “The outpouring all across the country has been phenomenal.”

Wetherbee said he and Mitchell first served together in the early ’90s while both were in the Marines in reconnaissance units.

“You take every positive word you can think of in the dictionary, and that is Troy,” Wetherbee said. “He would give you the shirt off his back.”

Mitchell served in the Gulf War, fighting in the Battle of Khafji in January 1991, and then later served in Bosnia.

But Wetherbee said Mitchell’s greatest contribution came when he was stationed in Washington, D.C.

Mitchell’s efforts led to reconnaissance becoming a primary military occupation speciality, which has changed the way they operate, Wetherbee said.

“Because of everything he has done – all the hard work and dedication – things are very different for 1,400 Marines (in reconnaissance units) today,” Wetherbee said.

Wetherbee recalled the time he stayed with Mitchell for several weeks while they were in Washington, D.C.

“We would spend the evening with him teaching me how to pick locks,” Wetherbee said. “What he could do in a couple (of) seconds would take me about 30 minutes.”

‘The act is so foreign’
As friends and family shared memories of Mitchell, they also expressed their horror at his shooting.

“I don’t understand the people that would do something like this,” Beverly Pearson said. “These are hoodlums, punk kids. Where are their parents?”

Pearson, 46, said she met Mitchell when he came out to her home to jump off her car. He came to her rescue numerous times when she locked her keys in her car or left on her lights.

“I was devastated when I found out he was shot,” she said. “He was a wonderful man.”
Mitchell’s father-in-law agreed that it was difficult for him to think about how someone could shoot a man in the face for a wallet and cell phone.

“It is so unnecessary, and so senseless, and so stupid … a working guy that is not going to have a lot of money in his pocket,” he said. “The act is so foreign to me, I can’t even grasp it.”

Even so, Lovelace said he “feels for those people.

“I know you have the emotion of anger, (but) that is senseless and stupid, and you pray and ask why something like this so senseless had to happen,” Lovelace said. “It doesn’t make sense, but the standard of a Christianity is to exhibit those things of your faith when they are not going your way.”

Central grad, vet killed
Victim likely shot during robbery in Tennessee
By Chuck Hega – Grand Forks Herald
30 OCT 2009

A 1983 graduate of Grand Forks Central High School, a 22-year Marine veteran who served in Bosnia and Iraq, has died after being shot Wednesday as he worked on a car near his home in Jackson, Tenn.

Troy Mitchell, 44, died Thursday night from a gunshot wound to the face, according to the Jackson Sun newspaper.

Jackson police investigators said they believe Mitchell, owner of a lock and safe store in Jackson, was shot apparently during a robbery. He was attacked as he worked to replace a bad ignition switch in a customer’s car, and one of Mitchell’s sons told police that his father’s cell phone and wallet were missing.

Mitchell and his wife, Kelly, have seven sons ranging in age from 5 to 27. The family moved to Jackson in 2004.

“We wrestled together at Central in 1981, ’82 and ’83,” said Steve Heyd, now principal at New Heights Elementary School in East Grand Forks.

“I think he was at 112 pounds, and he had to cut weight. He was a terrifically hard worker, the perfect example of the all-American kid.”

Mitchell joined the Marines shortly after graduating from Central. While in combat overseas, he received a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart, among other citations.

“That doesn’t surprise me,” Heyd said.

One of Mitchell’s sons is serving in Iraq now.

Jeff Delaney, owner of another Jackson locksmith shop and a friend of Mitchell, reacted bitterly to a report that a witness had seen four young men running from the area about the time of the shooting.

“It is indescribable to see what these people have done by this one senseless act,” Delaney told the Jackson newspaper. Mitchell “spent all his life serving his country, and he comes home and some punk kids put a bullet in his head.

“We are all just heartbroken.”

Though Heyd and Mitchell had not crossed paths since high school, Heyd said he heard occasional reports about his former teammate, and he had the same bewildered reaction.

“You make it through a war, and then this.”

Roe v Wade, Not really about abortion, is it?

For those of you who have actually begun to wonder if Roe says what the media says that it says, here it is. Roe is actually about ’standing’ and ‘mootness’. It’s wrong on its face, but so many of the Supremes’ decisions are, who can count and what can we do (vote Whig, of course, but that’d require that you buy the book: “Three Strikes and You’re out”, which you can’t find, can you?), about it? Three Strikes also has a section that includes the legal proof that the Federal Government cannot legally tax personal income. So, here’s Roe v Wade in its entirety:

BLACKMUN, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

——————————————————————————–

410 U.S. 113

Roe v. Wade
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

——————————————————————————–

No. 70-18 Argued: December 13, 1971 — Decided: January 22, 1973

——————————————————————————–

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This Texas federal appeal and its Georgia companion, Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, present constitutional challenges to state criminal abortion legislation. The Texas statutes under attack here are typical of those that have been in effect in many States for approximately a century. The Georgia statutes, in contrast, have a modern cast, and are a legislative product that, to an extent at least, obviously reflects the influences of recent attitudinal change, of advancing medical knowledge and techniques, and of new thinking about an old issue.

We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion.

In addition, population growth, pollution, poverty, and racial overtones tend to complicate and not to simplify the problem.

Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we [p117] have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries. We bear in mind, too, Mr. Justice Holmes’ admonition in his now-vindicated dissent in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 76 (1905):

[The Constitution] is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

I

The Texas statutes that concern us here are Arts. 1191-1194 and 1196 of the State’s Penal Code. [n1] These make it a crime to “procure an abortion,” as therein [p118] defined, or to attempt one, except with respect to “an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Similar statutes are in existence in a majority of the States. [n2] [p119]

Texas first enacted a criminal abortion statute in 1854. Texas Laws 1854, c. 49, § 1, set forth in 3 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 1502 (1898). This was soon modified into language that has remained substantially unchanged to the present time. See Texas Penal Code of 1857, c. 7, Arts. 531-536; G. Paschal, Laws of Texas, Arts. 2192-2197 (1866); Texas Rev.Stat., c. 8, Arts. 536-541 (1879); Texas Rev.Crim.Stat., Arts. 1071-1076 (1911). The final article in each of these compilations provided the same exception, as does the present Article 1196, for an abortion by “medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” [n3] [p120]

II

Jane Roe, [n4] a single woman who was residing in Dallas County, Texas, instituted this federal action in March 1970 against the District Attorney of the county. She sought a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional on their face, and an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes.

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions”; that she was unable to get a “legal” abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint, Roe purported to sue “on behalf of herself and all other women” similarly situated.

James Hubert Hallford, a licensed physician, sought and was granted leave to intervene in Roe’s action. In his complaint, he alleged that he had been arrested previously for violations of the Texas abortion statutes, and [p121] that two such prosecutions were pending against him. He described conditions of patients who came to him seeking abortions, and he claimed that for many cases he, as a physician, was unable to determine whether they fell within or outside the exception recognized by Article 1196. He alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients’ rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

John and Mary Doe, [n5] a married couple, filed a companion complaint to that of Roe. They also named the District Attorney as defendant, claimed like constitutional deprivations, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The Does alleged that they were a childless couple; that Mrs. Doe was suffering from a “neural-chemical” disorder; that her physician had “advised her to avoid pregnancy until such time as her condition has materially improved” (although a pregnancy at the present time would not present “a serious risk” to her life); that, pursuant to medical advice, she had discontinued use of birth control pills; and that, if she should become pregnant, she would want to terminate the pregnancy by an abortion performed by a competent, licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. By an amendment to their complaint, the Does purported to sue “on behalf of themselves and all couples similarly situated.”

The two actions were consolidated and heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court. The suits thus presented the situations of the pregnant single woman, the childless couple, with the wife not pregnant, [p122] and the licensed practicing physician, all joining in the attack on the Texas criminal abortion statutes. Upon the filing of affidavits, motions were made for dismissal and for summary judgment. The court held that Roe and members of her class, and Dr. Hallford, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, but that the Does had failed to allege facts sufficient to state a present controversy, and did not have standing. It concluded that, with respect to the requests for a declaratory judgment, abstention was not warranted. On the merits, the District Court held that the

fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment,

and that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were void on their face because they were both unconstitutionally vague and constituted an overbroad infringement of the plaintiffs’ Ninth Amendment rights. The court then held that abstention was warranted with respect to the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the Does’ complaint, declared the abortion statutes void, and dismissed the application for injunctive relief. 314 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (ND Tex.1970).

The plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253 have appealed to this Court from that part of the District Court’s judgment denying the injunction. The defendant District Attorney has purported to cross-appeal, pursuant to the same statute, from the court’s grant of declaratory relief to Roe and Hallford. Both sides also have taken protective appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That court ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending decision here. We postponed decision on jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 402 U.S. 941 (1971) [p123]

It might have been preferable if the defendant, pursuant to our Rule 20, had presented to us a petition for certiorari before judgment in the Court of Appeals with respect to the granting of the plaintiffs’ prayer for declaratory relief. Our decisions in Mitchell v. Donovan, 398 U.S. 427 (1970), and Gunn v. University Committee, 399 U.S. 383 (1970), are to the effect that § 1253 does not authorize an appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone. We conclude, nevertheless, that those decisions do not foreclose our review of both the injunctive and the declaratory aspects of a case of this kind when it is properly here, as this one is, on appeal under 1253 from specific denial of injunctive relief, and the arguments as to both aspects are necessarily identical. See Carter v. Jury Comm’n, 396 U.S. 320 (1970); Florida Lime Growers v. Jacobsen, 362 U.S. 73, 80-81 (1960). It would be destructive of time and energy for all concerned were we to rule otherwise. Cf. Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179.

IV

We are next confronted with issues of justiciability, standing, and abstention. Have Roe and the Does established that “personal stake in the outcome of the controversy,” Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 (1962), that insures that

the dispute sought to be adjudicated will be presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of judicial resolution,

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 101 (1968), and Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732 (1972)? And what effect did the pendency of criminal abortion charges against Dr. Hallford in state court have upon the propriety of the federal court’s granting relief to him as a plaintiff-intervenor? [p124]

A. Jane Roe. Despite the use of the pseudonym, no suggestion is made that Roe is a fictitious person. For purposes of her case, we accept as true, and as established, her existence; her pregnant state, as of the inception of her suit in March 1970 and as late as May 21 of that year when she filed an alias affidavit with the District Court; and her inability to obtain a legal abortion in Texas.

Viewing Roe’s case as of the time of its filing and thereafter until as late a May, there can be little dispute that it then presented a case or controversy and that, wholly apart from the class aspects, she, as a pregnant single woman thwarted by the Texas criminal abortion laws, had standing to challenge those statutes. Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d 1121, 1125 (CA2 1971); Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d 833, 838-839 (CA6 1971); Poe v. Menghini, 339 F.Supp. 986, 990-991 (Kan.1972). See Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915). Indeed, we do not read the appellee’s brief as really asserting anything to the contrary. The “logical nexus between the status asserted and the claim sought to be adjudicated,” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. at 102, and the necessary degree of contentiousness, Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969), are both present.

The appellee notes, however, that the record does not disclose that Roe was pregnant at the time of the District Court hearing on May 22, 1970, [n6] or on the following June 17 when the court’s opinion and judgment were filed. And he suggests that Roe’s case must now be moot because she and all other members of her class are no longer subject to any 1970 pregnancy. [p125]

The usual rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply at the date the action is initiated. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950); Golden v. Zwickler, supra; SEC v. Medical Committee for Human Rights, 404 U.S. 403 (1972).

But when, as here, pregnancy is a significant fact in the litigation, the normal 266-day human gestation period is so short that the pregnancy will come to term before the usual appellate process is complete. If that termination makes a case moot, pregnancy litigation seldom will survive much beyond the trial stage, and appellate review will be effectively denied. Our law should not be that rigid. Pregnancy often comes more than once to the same woman, and in the general population, if man is to survive, it will always be with us. Pregnancy provides a classic justification for a conclusion of nonmootness. It truly could be “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911). See Moore v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 814, 816 (1969); Carroll v. Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 178-179 (1968); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-633 (1953).

We, therefore, agree with the District Court that Jane Roe had standing to undertake this litigation, that she presented a justiciable controversy, and that the termination of her 1970 pregnancy has not rendered her case moot.

B. Dr. Hallford. The doctor’s position is different. He entered Roe’s litigation as a plaintiff-intervenor, alleging in his complaint that he:

[I]n the past has been arrested for violating the Texas Abortion Laws and at the present time stands charged by indictment with violating said laws in the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, Texas to-wit: (1) The State of Texas vs. [p126] James H. Hallford, No. C-69-5307-IH, and (2) The State of Texas vs. James H. Hallford, No. C-692524-H. In both cases, the defendant is charged with abortion. . . .

In his application for leave to intervene, the doctor made like representations as to the abortion charges pending in the state court. These representations were also repeated in the affidavit he executed and filed in support of his motion for summary judgment.

Dr. Hallford is, therefore, in the position of seeking, in a federal court, declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the same statutes under which he stands charged in criminal prosecutions simultaneously pending in state court. Although he stated that he has been arrested in the past for violating the State’s abortion laws, he makes no allegation of any substantial and immediate threat to any federally protected right that cannot be asserted in his defense against the state prosecutions. Neither is there any allegation of harassment or bad faith prosecution. In order to escape the rule articulated in the cases cited in the next paragraph of this opinion that, absent harassment and bad faith, a defendant in a pending state criminal case cannot affirmatively challenge in federal court the statutes under which the State is prosecuting him, Dr. Hallford seeks to distinguish his status as a present state defendant from his status as a “potential future defendant,” and to assert only the latter for standing purposes here.

We see no merit in that distinction. Our decision in Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971), compels the conclusion that the District Court erred when it granted declaratory relief to Dr. Hallford instead of refraining from so doing. The court, of course, was correct in refusing to grant injunctive relief to the doctor. The reasons supportive of that action, however, are those expressed in Samuels v. Mackell, supra, and in Younger v. [p127] Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77 (1971); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82 (1971); and Byrne v. Karaleis, 401 U.S. 216 (1971). See also Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). We note, in passing, that Younger and its companion cases were decided after the three-judge District Court decision in this case.

Dr. Hallford’s complaint in intervention, therefore, is to be dismissed. [n7] He is remitted to his defenses in the state criminal proceedings against him. We reverse the judgment of the District Court insofar as it granted Dr. Hallford relief and failed to dismiss his complaint in intervention.

C. The Does. In view of our ruling as to Roe’s standing in her case, the issue of the Does’ standing in their case has little significance. The claims they assert are essentially the same as those of Roe, and they attack the same statutes. Nevertheless, we briefly note the Does’ posture.

Their pleadings present them as a childless married couple, the woman not being pregnant, who have no desire to have children at this time because of their having received medical advice that Mrs. Doe should avoid pregnancy, and for “other highly personal reasons.” But they “fear . . . they may face the prospect of becoming [p128] parents.” And if pregnancy ensues, they “would want to terminate” it by an abortion. They assert an inability to obtain an abortion legally in Texas and, consequently, the prospect of obtaining an illegal abortion there or of going outside Texas to some place where the procedure could be obtained legally and competently.

We thus have as plaintiffs a married couple who have, as their asserted immediate and present injury, only an alleged “detrimental effect upon [their] marital happiness” because they are forced to “the choice of refraining from normal sexual relations or of endangering Mary Doe’s health through a possible pregnancy.” Their claim is that, sometime in the future, Mrs. Doe might become pregnant because of possible failure of contraceptive measures, and, at that time in the future, she might want an abortion that might then be illegal under the Texas statutes.

This very phrasing of the Does’ position reveals its speculative character. Their alleged injury rests on possible future contraceptive failure, possible future pregnancy, possible future unpreparedness for parenthood, and possible future impairment of health. Any one or more of these several possibilities may not take place, and all may not combine. In the Does’ estimation, these possibilities might have some real or imagined impact upon their marital happiness. But we are not prepared to say that the bare allegation of so indirect an injury is sufficient to present an actual case or controversy. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 41-42; Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. at 109-110; Abele v. Markle, 452 F.2d at 1124-1125; Crossen v. Breckenridge, 446 F.2d at 839. The Does’ claim falls far short of those resolved otherwise in the cases that the Does urge upon us, namely, Investment Co. Institute v. Camp, 401 U.S. 617 (1971); Data Processing Service v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970); [p129] and Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). See also Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915).

The Does therefore are not appropriate plaintiffs in this litigation. Their complaint was properly dismissed by the District Court, and we affirm that dismissal.

V

The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id. at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws.

VI

It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman’s life, are not of ancient or even of common law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. [p130]

1. Ancient attitudes. These are not capable of precise determination. We are told that, at the time of the Persian Empire, abortifacients were known, and that criminal abortions were severely punished. [n8] We are also told, however, that abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era, [n9] and that “it was resorted to without scruple.” [n10] The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to have been generally opposed to Rome’s prevailing free-abortion practices. He found it necessary to think first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to abortion when, upon this standard, he felt the procedure advisable. [n11] Greek and Roman law afforded little protection to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father’s right to his offspring. Ancient religion did not bar abortion. [n12]

2. The Hippocratic Oath. What then of the famous Oath that has stood so long as the ethical guide of the medical profession and that bears the name of the great Greek (460(?)-377(?) B. C.), who has been described [p131] as the Father of Medicine, the “wisest and the greatest practitioner of his art,” and the “most important and most complete medical personality of antiquity,” who dominated the medical schools of his time, and who typified the sum of the medical knowledge of the past? [n13] The Oath varies somewhat according to the particular translation, but in any translation the content is clear:

I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner, I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion, [n14]

or

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly, I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. [n15]

Although the Oath is not mentioned in any of the principal briefs in this case or in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, it represents the apex of the development of strict ethical concepts in medicine, and its influence endures to this day. Why did not the authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein provides us with a theory: [n16] The Oath was not uncontested even in Hippocrates’ day; only the Pythagorean school of philosophers frowned upon the related act of suicide. Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans, however, it was a matter of dogma. For them, the embryo was animate from the moment of conception, and abortion meant destruction of a living being. The abortion clause of the Oath, therefore, “echoes Pythagorean doctrines,” [p132] and “[i]n no other stratum of Greek opinion were such views held or proposed in the same spirit of uncompromising austerity.” [n17]

Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion, and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient physicians. He points out that medical writings down to Galen (A.D. 130-200) “give evidence of the violation of almost every one of its injunctions.” [n18] But with the end of antiquity, a decided change took place. Resistance against suicide and against abortion became common. The Oath came to be popular. The emerging teachings of Christianity were in agreement with the Pythagorean ethic. The Oath “became the nucleus of all medical ethics,” and “was applauded as the embodiment of truth.” Thus, suggests Dr. Edelstein, it is “a Pythagorean manifesto, and not the expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct.” [n19]

This, it seems to us, is a satisfactory and acceptable explanation of the Hippocratic Oath’s apparent rigidity. It enables us to understand, in historical context, a long-accepted and revered statement of medical ethics.

3. The common law. It is undisputed that, at common law, abortion performed before “quickening” — the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy [n20] — was not an indictable offense. [n21] The absence [p133] of a common law crime for pre-quickening abortion appears to have developed from a confluence of earlier philosophical, theological, and civil and canon law concepts of when life begins. These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became “formed” or recognizably human, or in terms of when a “person” came into being, that is, infused with a “soul” or “animated.” A loose consensus evolved in early English law that these events occurred at some point between conception and live birth. [n22] This was “mediate animation.” Although [p134] Christian theology and the canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise little agreement about the precise time of formation or animation. There was agreement, however, that, prior to this point, the fetus was to be regarded as part of the mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide. Due to continued uncertainty about the precise time when animation occurred, to the lack of any empirical basis for the 40-80-day view, and perhaps to Aquinas’ definition of movement as one of the two first principles of life, Bracton focused upon quickening as the critical point. The significance of quickening was echoed by later common law scholars, and found its way into the received common law in this country.

Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. [n23] But the later and predominant view, following the great common law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited [p135] passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman “quick with childe” is “a great misprision, and no murder.” [n24] Blackstone followed, saying that, while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), “modern law” took a less severe view. [n25] A recent review of the common law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke, and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common law crime. [n26] This is of some importance, because, while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum, that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under their received common law, [n27] others followed Coke in stating that abortion [p136] of a quick fetus was a “misprision,” a term they translated to mean “misdemeanor.” [n28] That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum (due probably to the paucity of common law prosecutions for post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus.

4. The English statutory law. England’s first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough’s Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It made abortion of a quick fetus, § 1, a capital crime, but, in § 2, it provided lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the “quickening” distinction. This contrast was continued in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, § 13. It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty, in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. § 6, and did not reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861, 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, § 59, that formed the core of English anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, 19 & 20 Geo. 5, c. 34, came into being. Its emphasis was upon the destruction of “the life of a child capable of being born alive.” It made a willful act performed with the necessary intent a felony. It contained a proviso that one was not to be [p137] found guilty of the offense

unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.

A seemingly notable development in the English law was the case of Rex v. Bourne, [1939] 1 K.B. 687. This case apparently answered in the affirmative the question whether an abortion necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant woman was excepted from the criminal penalties of the 1861 Act. In his instructions to the jury, Judge Macnaghten referred to the 1929 Act, and observed that that Act related to “the case where a child is killed by a willful act at the time when it is being delivered in the ordinary course of nature.” Id. at 691. He concluded that the 1861 Act’s use of the word “unlawfully,” imported the same meaning expressed by the specific proviso in the 1929 Act, even though there was no mention of preserving the mother’s life in the 1861 Act. He then construed the phrase “preserving the life of the mother” broadly, that is, “in a reasonable sense,” to include a serious and permanent threat to the mother’s health, and instructed the jury to acquit Dr. Bourne if it found he had acted in a good faith belief that the abortion was necessary for this purpose. Id. at 693-694. The jury did acquit.

Recently, Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967, 15 & 16 Eliz. 2, c. 87. The Act permits a licensed physician to perform an abortion where two other licensed physicians agree (a)

that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated,

or (b)

that there is a substantial risk that, if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as [p138] to be seriously handicapped.

The Act also provides that, in making this determination, “account may be taken of the pregnant woman’s actual or reasonably foreseeable environment.” It also permits a physician, without the concurrence of others, to terminate a pregnancy where he is of the good faith opinion that the abortion “is immediately necessary to save the life or to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.”

5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the preexisting English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough’s Act that related to a woman “quick with child.” [n29] The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. [n30] In 1828, New York enacted legislation [n31] that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it

shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose.

By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, [n32] only eight American States [p139] had statutes dealing with abortion. [n33] It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening, but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother’s life, that provision soon disappeared, and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose. Gradually, in the middle and late 19th century, the quickening distinction disappeared from the statutory law of most States and the degree of the offense and the penalties were increased. By the end of the 1950’s, a large majority of the jurisdictions banned abortion, however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother. [n34] The exceptions, Alabama and the District of Columbia, permitted abortion to preserve the mother’s health. [n35] Three States permitted abortions that were not “unlawfully” performed or that were not “without lawful justification,” leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts. [n36] In [p140] the past several years, however, a trend toward liberalization of abortion statutes has resulted in adoption, by about one-third of the States, of less stringent laws, most of them patterned after the ALI Model Penal Code, § 230.3, [n37] set forth as Appendix B to the opinion in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 205.

It is thus apparent that, at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity [p141] to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy.

6. The position of the American Medical Association. The anti-abortion mood prevalent in this country in the late 19th century was shared by the medical profession. Indeed, the attitude of the profession may have played a significant role in the enactment of stringent criminal abortion legislation during that period.

An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May, 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 778 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion “with a view to its general suppression.” It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of “this general demoralization”:

The first of these causes is a widespread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime — a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life. . . .

The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, [p142] and to its life as yet denies all protection.

Id. at 776. The Committee then offered, and the Association adopted, resolutions protesting “against such unwarrantable destruction of human life,” calling upon state legislatures to revise their abortion laws, and requesting the cooperation of state medical societies “in pressing the subject.” Id. at 28, 78.

In 1871, a long and vivid report was submitted by the Committee on Criminal Abortion. It ended with the observation,

We had to deal with human life. In a matter of less importance, we could entertain no compromise. An honest judge on the bench would call things by their proper names. We could do no less.

22 Trans. of the Am.Med.Assn. 268 (1871). It proffered resolutions, adopted by the Association, id. at 38-39, recommending, among other things, that it

be unlawful and unprofessional for any physician to induce abortion or premature labor without the concurrent opinion of at least one respectable consulting physician, and then always with a view to the safety of the child — if that be possible,

and calling

the attention of the clergy of all denominations to the perverted views of morality entertained by a large class of females — aye, and men also, on this important question.

Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy of opposition to induced abortion except when there is “documented medical evidence” of a threat to the health or life of the mother, or that the child “may be born with incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency,” or that a pregnancy “resulting from legally established statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or physical health of the [p143] patient,” two other physicians “chosen because of their recognized professional competence have examined the patient and have concurred in writing,” and the procedure “is performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals.” The providing of medical information by physicians to state legislatures in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic abortion was “to be considered consistent with the principles of ethics of the American Medical Association.” This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates. Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967).

In 1970, after the introduction of a variety of proposed resolutions and of a report from its Board of Trustees, a reference committee noted “polarization of the medical profession on this controversial issue”; division among those who had testified; a difference of opinion among AMA councils and.committees; “the remarkable shift in testimony” in six months, felt to be influenced “by the rapid changes in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to make abortion more freely available; ” and a feeling “that this trend will continue.” On June 25, 1970, the House of Delegates adopted preambles and most of the resolutions proposed by the reference committee. The preambles emphasized “the best interests of the patient,” “sound clinical judgment,” and “informed patient consent,” in contrast to “mere acquiescence to the patient’s demand.” The resolutions asserted that abortion is a medical procedure that should be performed by a licensed physician in an accredited hospital only after consultation with two other physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no party to the procedure should be required to violate personally held moral principles. [n38] Proceedings [p144] of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970). The AMA Judicial Council rendered a complementary opinion. [n39]

7. The position of the American Public Health Association. In October, 1970, the Executive Board of the APHA adopted Standards for Abortion Services. These were five in number:

a. Rapid and simple abortion referral must be readily available through state and local public [p145] health departments, medical societies, or other nonprofit organizations.

b. An important function of counseling should be to simplify and expedite the provision of abortion services; it should not delay the obtaining of these services.

c. Psychiatric consultation should not be mandatory. As in the case of other specialized medical services, psychiatric consultation should be sought for definite indications, and not on a routine basis.

d. A wide range of individuals from appropriately trained, sympathetic volunteers to highly skilled physicians may qualify as abortion counselors.

e. Contraception and/or sterilization should be discussed with each abortion patient.

Recommended Standards for Abortion Services, 61 Am.J.Pub.Health 396 (1971). Among factors pertinent to life and health risks associated with abortion were three that “are recognized as important”:

a. the skill of the physician,

b. the environment in which the abortion is performed, and above all

c. the duration of pregnancy, as determined by uterine size and confirmed by menstrual history.

Id. at 397.

It was said that “a well equipped hospital” offers more protection

to cope with unforeseen difficulties than an office or clinic without such resources. . . . The factor of gestational age is of overriding importance.

Thus, it was recommended that abortions in the second trimester and early abortions in the presence of existing medical complications be performed in hospitals as inpatient procedures. For pregnancies in the first trimester, [p146] abortion in the hospital with or without overnight stay “is probably the safest practice.” An abortion in an extramural facility, however, is an acceptable alternative “provided arrangements exist in advance to admit patients promptly if unforeseen complications develop.” Standards for an abortion facility were listed. It was said that, at present, abortions should be performed by physicians or osteopaths who are licensed to practice and who have “adequate training.” Id. at 398.

8. The position of the American Bar Association. At its meeting in February, 1972, the ABA House of Delegates approved, with 17 opposing votes, the Uniform Abortion Act that had been drafted and approved the preceding August by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. 58 A.B.A.J. 380 (1972). We set forth the Act in full in the margin. [n40] The [p147] Opinion of the Court Conference has appended an enlightening Prefatory Note. [n41]

VII

Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence. [p148]

It has been argued occasionally that these laws were the product of a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct. Texas, however, does not advance this justification in the present case, and it appears that no court or commentator has taken the argument seriously. [n42] The appellants and amici contend, moreover, that this is not a proper state purpose, at all and suggest that, if it were, the Texas statutes are overbroad in protecting it, since the law fails to distinguish between married and unwed mothers.

A second reason is concerned with abortion as a medical procedure. When most criminal abortion laws were first enacted, the procedure was a hazardous one for the woman. [n43] This was particularly true prior to the [p149] development of antisepsis. Antiseptic techniques, of course, were based on discoveries by Lister, Pasteur, and others first announced in 1867, but were not generally accepted and employed until about the turn of the century. Abortion mortality was high. Even after 1900, and perhaps until as late as the development of antibiotics in the 1940’s, standard modern techniques such as dilation and curettage were not nearly so safe as they are today. Thus, it has been argued that a State’s real concern in enacting a criminal abortion law was to protect the pregnant woman, that is, to restrain her from submitting to a procedure that placed her life in serious jeopardy.

Modern medical techniques have altered this situation. Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth. [n44] Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared. Of course, important state interests in the areas of health and medical standards do remain. [p150] The State has a legitimate interest in seeing to it that abortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maximum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends at least to the performing physician and his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provision for any complication or emergency that might arise. The prevalence of high mortality rates at illegal “abortion mills” strengthens, rather than weakens, the State’s interest in regulating the conditions under which abortions are performed. Moreover, the risk to the woman increases as her pregnancy continues. Thus, the State retains a definite interest in protecting the woman’s own health and safety when an abortion is proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.

The third reason is the State’s interest — some phrase it in terms of duty — in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. [n45] The State’s interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State’s interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. [p151]

Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life. [n46] Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. Because medical advances have lessened this concern, at least with respect to abortion in early pregnancy, they argue that with respect to such abortions the laws can no longer be justified by any state interest. There is some scholarly support for this view of original purpose. [n47] The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the State’s interest in protecting the woman’s health, rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus. [n48] Proponents of this view point out that in many States, including Texas, [n49] by statute or judicial interpretation, the pregnant woman herself could not be prosecuted for self-abortion or for cooperating in an abortion performed upon her by another. [n50] They claim that adoption of the “quickening” distinction through received common [p152] law and state statutes tacitly recognizes the greater health hazards inherent in late abortion and impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception.

It is with these interests, and the eight to be attached to them, that this case is concerned.

VIII

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 [p153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive. The [p154] Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) ( sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified, and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

We note that those federal and state courts that have recently considered abortion law challenges have reached the same conclusion. A majority, in addition to the District Court in the present case, have held state laws unconstitutional, at least in part, because of vagueness or because of overbreadth and abridgment of rights. Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730; Doe v. Bolton, 319 F.Supp. 1048 (ND Ga.1970), appeal decided today, post, p. 179; Doe v. Scott, 321 F.Supp. 1385 (ND Ill.1971), appeal docketed, No. 70-105; Poe v. Menghini, 339 F.Supp. 986 (Kan.1972); YWCA v. Kuler, 342 F.Supp. 1048 (NJ 1972); Babbitz v. McCann, [p155] 310 F.Supp. 293 (ED Wis.1970), appeal dismissed, 400 U.S. 1 (1970); People v. Belous, 71 Cal.2d 954, 458 P.2d 194 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 915 (1970); State v. Barquet, 262 So.2d 431 (Fla.1972).

Others have sustained state statutes. Crossen v. Attorney General, 344 F.Supp. 587 (ED Ky.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-256; Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F.Supp. 1217 (ED La.1970), appeal docketed, No. 70-42; Corkey v. Edwards, 322 F.Supp. 1248 (WDNC 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-92; Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F.Supp. 741 (ND Ohio 1970); Doe v. Rampton (Utah 1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-5666; Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. ___, 285 N.E.2d 265 (1972); Spears v. State, 257 So.2d 876 (Miss. 1972); State v. Munson, 86 S.D. 663, 201 N.W.2d 123 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-631.

Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute, and is subject to some limitations; and that, at some point, the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach.

Where certain “fundamental rights” are involved, the Court has held that regulation limiting these rights may be justified only by a “compelling state interest,” Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), and that legislative enactments must be narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 485; Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307-308 (1940); see [p156] Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 460, 463-464 (WHITE, J., concurring in result).

In the recent abortion cases cited above, courts have recognized these principles. Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State’s interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. Courts sustaining state laws have held that the State’s determinations to protect health or prenatal life are dominant and constitutionally justifiable.

IX

The District Court held that the appellee failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that the Texas statute’s infringement upon Roe’s rights was necessary to support a compelling state interest, and that, although the appellee presented “several compelling justifications for state presence in the area of abortions,” the statutes outstripped these justifications and swept “far beyond any areas of compelling state interest.” 314 F.Supp. at 1222-1223. Appellant and appellee both contest that holding. Appellant, as has been indicated, claims an absolute right that bars any state imposition of criminal penalties in the area. Appellee argues that the State’s determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define “person” in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to “person.” The first, in defining “citizens,” speaks of “persons born or naturalized in the United States.” The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. “Person” is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. [n55] This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa.1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 194, 286 N.E.2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind. at ___, 285 N.E.2d at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff’d sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [p159] Ohio St.2d 65, 275 N.E.2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [p160]

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live’ birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. [n56] It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. [n57] It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. [n58] As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes “viable,” that is, potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. [n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. [n60] The Aristotelian theory of “mediate animation,” that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this “ensoulment” theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [p161] the moment of conception. [n61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a “process” over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the “morning-after” pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. [n62]

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. [n63] That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few [p162] courts have squarely so held. [n64] In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. [n65] Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents’ interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. [n66] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [p163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes “compelling.”

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the “compelling” point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that, until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this “compelling” point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [p164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. at 67-72.

XI

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life [p165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term “physician,” as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. [n67]

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [p166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

XII

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.

Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court’s decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 252-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965). We are not dealing with a statute that, on its face, appears to abridge free expression, an area of particular concern under Dombrowski and refined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 50.

We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional.

The judgment of the District Court as to intervenor Hallford is reversed, and Dr. Hallford’s complaint in intervention is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment [p167] of the District Court is affirmed. Costs are allowed to the appellee.

It is so ordered.

[For concurring opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see post, p. 207.]

[For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, see post, p. 209.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE WHITE, see post, p. 221.]

1.

Article 1191. Abortion

If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years; if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. By “abortion” is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman’s womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused.

Art. 1192. Furnishing the means

Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice.

Art. 1193. Attempt at abortion

If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, provided it be shown that such means were calculated to produce that result, and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

Art. 1194. Murder in producing abortion

If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder.

Art. 1196. By medical advice

Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.

The foregoing Articles, together with Art. 1195, compose Chapter 9 of Title 15 of the Penal Code. Article 1195, not attacked here, reads:

Art. 1195. Destroying unborn child

Whoever shall during parturition of the mother destroy the vitality or life in a child in a state of being born and before actual birth, which child would otherwise have been born alive, shall be confined in the penitentiary for life or for not less than five years.

2. Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 13-211 (1956); Conn.Pub. Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session) (in 4 Conn.Leg.Serv. 677 (1972)), and Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. §§ 53-29, 53-30 (1968) (or unborn child); Idaho Code § 18-601 (1948); Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 23-1 (1971); Ind.Code § 35-1-58-1 (1971); Iowa Code § 701.1 (1971); Ky.Rev.Stat. § 436.020 (1962); La.Rev.Stat. § 37: 1285(6) (1964) (loss of medical license) (but see § 14:87 (Supp. 1972) containing no exception for the life of the mother under the criminal statute); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann, Tit. 17, § 51 (1964); Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., c. 272, § 19 (1970) (using the term “unlawfully,” construed to exclude an abortion to save the mother’s life, Kudish v. Bd. of Registration, 356 Mass. 98, 248 N.E.2d 264 (1969)); Mich.Comp.Laws § 750.14 (1948); Minn.Stat. § 617.18 (1971); Mo.Rev.Stat. § 559.100 (1969); Mont.Rev.Codes Ann. § 94-401 (1969); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-405 (1964); Nev.Rev.Stat. § 200.220 (1967); N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 585: 13 (1955); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A:87-1 (1969) (“without lawful justification”); N.D.Cent.Code §§ 12-25-01, 12-25-02 (1960); Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2901.16 (1953); Okla.Stat.Ann., Tit. 21, § 861 (1972-1973 Supp.); Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 18, §§ 4718, 4719 (1963) (“unlawful”); R.I.Gen.Laws Ann. § 11-3-1 (1969); S.D.Comp.Laws Ann. § 22-17-1 (1967); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-301, 39-302 (1956); Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-2-1, 76-2-2 (1953); Vt.Stat.Ann., Tit. 13, § 101 (1958); W.Va.Code Ann. § 61-2-8 (1966); Wis.Stat. § 940.04 (1969); Wyo.Stat.Ann. §§ 6-77, 6-78 (1957).

3. Long ago, a suggestion was made that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague because of definitional deficiencies. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of that suggestion peremptorily, saying only,

It is also insisted in the motion in arrest of judgment that the statute is unconstitutional and void in that it does not sufficiently define or describe the offense of abortion. We do not concur in respect to this question.

Jackson v. State, 55 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 89, 115 S.W. 262, 268 (1908). The same court recently has held again that the State’s abortion statutes are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Thompson v. State (Ct.Crim.App. Tex.1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-1200. The court held that “the State of Texas has a compelling interest to protect fetal life”; that Art. 1191 “is designed to protect fetal life”; that the Texas homicide statutes, particularly Art. 1205 of the Penal Code, are intended to protect a person “in existence by actual birth,” and thereby implicitly recognize other human life that is not “in existence by actual birth”; that the definition of human life is for the legislature and not the courts; that Art. 1196 “is more definite than the District of Columbia statute upheld in [United States v.] Vuitch” (402 U.S. 62); and that the Texas statute “is not vague and indefinite or overbroad.” A physician’s abortion conviction was affirmed.

In Thompson, n. 2, the court observed that any issue as to the burden of proof under the exemption of Art. 1196 “is not before us.” But see Veevers v. State, 172 Tex.Cr.R. 162, 168-169, 354 S.W.2d 161, 166-167 (1962). Cf. United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 69-71 (1971).

4. The name is a pseudonym.

5. These names are pseudonyms.

6. The appellee twice states in his brief that the hearing before the District Court was held on July 22, 1970. Brief for Appellee 13. The docket entries,App. 2, and the transcript, App. 76, reveal this to be an error. The July date appears to be the time of the reporter’s transcription. See App. 77.

7. We need not consider what different result, if any, would follow if Dr. Hallford’s intervention were on behalf of a class. His complaint in intervention does not purport to assert a class suit, and makes no reference to any class apart from an allegation that he “and others similarly situated” must necessarily guess at the meaning of Art. 1196. His application for leave to intervene goes somewhat further, for it asserts that plaintiff Roe does not adequately protect the interest of the doctor “and the class of people who are physicians . . . [and] the class of people who are . . . patients. . . .” The leave application, however, is not the complaint. Despite the District Court’s statement to the contrary, 314 F.Supp. at 1225, we fail to perceive the essentials of a class suit in the Hallford complaint.

8. A. Castiglioni, A History of Medicine 84 (2d ed.1947), E. Krumbhaar, translator and editor (hereinafter Castiglioni).

9. J. Ricci, The Genealogy of Gynaecology 52, 84, 113, 149 (2d ed.1950) (hereinafter Ricci); L. Lader, Abortion 75-77 (1966) (hereinafter Lader), K. Niswander, Medical Abortion Practices in the United States, in Abortion and the Law 37, 38-40 (D. Smith ed.1967); G. Williams, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law 148 (1957) (hereinafter Williams); J. Noonan, An Almost Absolute Value in History, in The Morality of Abortion 1, 3-7 (J. Noonan ed.1970) (hereinafter Noonan); Quay, Justifiable Abortion — Medical and Legal Foundations (pt. 2), 49 Geo.L.J. 395, 40622 (1961) (hereinafter Quay).

10. L. Edelstein, The Hippocratic Oath 10 (1943) (hereinafter Edelstein). But see Castiglioni 227.

11. Edelstein 12; Ricci 113-114, 118-119; Noonan 5.

12. Edelstein 13-14

13. Castiglioni 148.

14. Id. at 154.

15. Edelstein 3.

16. Id. at 12, 15-18.

17. Id. at 18; Lader 76.

18. Edelstein 63.

19. Id. at 64.

20. Dorand’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1261 (24th ed.1965).

21. E. Coke, Institutes III *50; 1 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown, c. 31, § 16 (4th ed. 1762); 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *129-130; M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 433 (1st Amer. ed. 1847). For discussions of the role of the quickening concept in English common law, see Lader 78; Noonan 223-226; Means, The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the Foetus, 1664-1968: A Case of Cessation of Constitutionality (pt. 1), 14 N.Y.L.F. 411, 418-428 (1968) (hereinafter Means I); Stern, Abortion: Reform and the Law, 59 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 84 (1968) (hereinafter Stern); Quay 430-432; Williams 152.

22. Early philosophers believed that the embryo or fetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male and 80 to 90 days for a female. See, for example, Aristotle, Hist.Anim. 7.3.583b; Gen.Anim. 2.3.736, 2.5.741; Hippocrates, Lib. de Nat.Puer., No. 10. Aristotle’s thinking derived from his three-stage theory of life: vegetable, animal, rational. The vegetable stage was reached at conception, the animal at “animation,” and the rational soon after live birth. This theory, together with the 40/80 day view, came to be accepted by early Christian thinkers.

The theological debate was reflected in the writings of St. Augustine, who made a distinction between embryo inanimatus, not yet endowed with a soul, and embryo animatus. He may have drawn upon Exodus 21:22. At one point, however, he expressed the view that human powers cannot determine the point during fetal development at which the critical change occurs. See Augustine, De Origine Animae 4.4 (Pub.Law 44.527). See also W. Reany, The Creation of the Human Soul, c. 2 and 83-86 (1932); Huser, The Crime of Abortion in Canon Law 15 (Catholic Univ. of America, Canon Law Studies No. 162, Washington, D.C.1942).

Galen, in three treatises related to embryology, accepted the thinking of Aristotle and his followers. Quay 426-427. Later, Augustine on abortion was incorporated by Gratian into the Decretum, published about 1140. Decretum Magistri Gratiani 2.32.2.7 to 2.32.2.10, in 1 Corpus Juris Canonici 1122, 1123 (A. Friedburg, 2d ed. 1879). This Decretal and the Decretals that followed were recognized as the definitive body of canon law until the new Code of 1917.

For discussions of the canon law treatment, see Means I, pp. 411-412; Noonan 20-26; Quay 426-430; see also J. Noonan, Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists 18-29 (1965).

23. Bracton took the position that abortion by blow or poison was homicide “if the foetus be already formed and animated, and particularly if it be animated.” 2 H. Bracton, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae 279 (T. Twiss ed. 1879), or, as a later translation puts it, “if the foetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened,” 2 H. Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England 341 (S. Thorne ed.1968). See Quay 431; see also 2 Fleta 661 (Book 1, c. 23) (Selden Society ed.1955).

24. E. Coke, Institutes III *50.

25. 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *129-130.

26. Means, The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom: Is a Penumbral or Ninth-Amendment Right About to Arise from the Nineteenth Century Legislative Ashes of a Fourteenth Century Common Law Liberty?, 17 N.Y.L.F. 335 (1971) (hereinafter Means II). The author examines the two principal precedents cited marginally by Coke, both contrary to his dictum, and traces the treatment of these and other cases by earlier commentators. He concludes that Coke, who himself participated as an advocate in an abortion case in 1601, may have intentionally misstated the law. The author even suggests a reason: Coke’s strong feelings against abortion, coupled with his determination to assert common law (secular) jurisdiction to assess penalties for an offense that traditionally had been an exclusively ecclesiastical or canon law crime. See also Lader 78-79, who notes that some scholars doubt that the common law ever was applied to abortion; that the English ecclesiastical courts seem to have lost interest in the problem after 1527; and that the preamble to the English legislation of 1803, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, § 1, referred to in the text, infra at 136, states that “no adequate means have been hitherto provided for the prevention and punishment of such offenses.”

27. Commonwealth v. Bangs, 9 Mass. 387, 388 (1812); Commonwealth v. Parker, 50 Mass. (9 Metc.) 263, 265-266 (1845); State v. Cooper, 22 N.J.L. 52, 58 (1849); Abrams v. Foshee, 3 Iowa 274, 278-280 (1856); Smith v. Gaffard, 31 Ala. 45, 51 (1857); Mitchell v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 204, 210 (1879); Eggart v. State, 40 Fla. 527, 532, 25 So. 144, 145 (1898); State v. Alcorn, 7 Idaho 599, 606, 64 P. 1014, 1016 (1901); Edwards v. State, 79 Neb. 251, 252, 112 N.W. 611, 612 (1907); Gray v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 221, 224, 178 S.W. 337, 338 (1915); Miller v. Bennett, 190 Va. 162, 169, 56 S.E.2d 217, 221 (1949). Contra, Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 633 (1850); State v. Slagle, 83 N.C. 630, 632 (1880).

28. See Smith v. State, 33 Me. 48, 55 (1851); Evans v. People, 49 N.Y. 86, 88 (1872); Lamb v. State, 67 Md. 524, 533, 10 A. 208 (1887).

29. Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, § 14 (1821).

30. Conn.Pub. Acts, c. 71, § 1 (1860).

31. N.Y.Rev.Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit. 2, Art. 1, § 9, p. 661, and Tit. 6, § 21, p. 694 (1829).

32. Act of Jan. 20, 1840, § 1, set forth in 2 H. Gammel, Laws of Texas 177-178 (1898); see Grigsby v. Reib, 105 Tex. 597, 600, 153 S.W. 1124, 1125 (1913).

33. The early statutes are discussed in Quay 435-438. See also Lader 85-88; Stern 85-86; and Means II 37376.

34. Criminal abortion statutes in effect in the States as of 1961, together with historical statutory development and important judicial interpretations of the state statutes, are cited and quoted in Quay 447-520. See Comment, A Survey of the Present Statutory and Case Law on Abortion: The Contradictions and the Problems, 1972 U.Ill.L.F. 177, 179, classifying the abortion statutes and listing 25 States as permitting abortion only if necessary to save or preserve the mother’s life.

35. Ala.Code, Tit. 14, § 9 (1958); D.C.Code Ann. § 22-201 (1967).

36. Mass.Gen.Laws Ann., c. 272, § 19 (1970); N.J.Stat.Ann. § 2A: 87-1 (1969); Pa.Stat.Ann., Tit. 18, §§ 4718, 4719 (1963).

37. Fourteen States have adopted some form of the ALI statute. See Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 41-303 to 41-310 (Supp. 1971); Calif.Health & Safety Code §§ 25950-25955.5 (Supp. 1972); Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 40-2-50 to 40-2-53 (Cum.Supp. 1967); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 24, §§ 1790-1793 (Supp. 1972); Florida Law of Apr. 13, 1972, c. 72-196, 1972 Fla.Sess.Law Serv., pp. 380-382; Ga.Code §§ 26-1201 to 26-1203 (1972); Kan.Stat.Ann. § 21-3407 (Supp. 1971); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 43, §§ 137-139 (1971); Miss.Code Ann. § 2223 (Supp. 1972); N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 40A-5-1 to 40A-5-3 (1972); N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971); Ore.Rev.Stat. §§ 435.405 to 435.495 (1971); S.C.Code Ann. §§ 16-82 to 16-89 (1962 and Supp. 1971); Va.Code Ann. §§ 18.1-62 to 18.1-62.3 (Supp. 1972). Mr. Justice Clark described some of these States as having “led the way.” Religion, Morality, and Abortion: A Constitutional Appraisal, 2 Loyola U. (L.A.) L.Rev. 1, 11 (1969).

By the end of 1970, four other States had repealed criminal penalties for abortions performed in early pregnancy by a licensed physician, subject to stated procedural and health requirements. Alaska Stat. § 11.15.060 (1970); Haw.Rev.Stat. § 453-16 (Supp. 1971); N.Y.Penal Code § 125.05, subd. 3 (Supp. 1972-1973); Wash.Rev.Code §§ 9.02.060 to 9.02.080 (Supp. 1972). The precise status of criminal abortion laws in some States is made unclear by recent decisions in state and federal courts striking down existing state laws, in whole or in part.

38.

Whereas, Abortion, like any other medical procedure, should not be performed when contrary to the best interests of the patient since good medical practice requires due consideration for the patient’s welfare, and not mere acquiescence to the patient’s demand; and

Whereas, The standards of sound clinical judgment, which, together with informed patient consent, should be determinative according to the merits of each individual case; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That abortion is a medical procedure and should be performed only by a duly licensed physician and surgeon in an accredited hospital acting only after consultation with two other physicians chosen because of their professional competency and in conformance with standards of good medical practice and the Medical Practice Act of his State; and be it further

RESOLVED, That no physician or other professional personnel shall be compelled to perform any act which violates his good medical judgment. Neither physician, hospital, nor hospital personnel shall be required to perform any act violative of personally held moral principles. In these circumstances, good medical practice requires only that the physician or other professional personnel withdraw from the case so long as the withdrawal is consistent with good medical practice.

Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970).

39.

The Principles of Medical Ethics of the AMA do not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion that is performed in accordance with good medical practice and under circumstances that do not violate the laws of the community in which he practices.

In the matter of abortions, as of any other medical procedure, the Judicial Council becomes involved whenever there is alleged violation of the Principles of Medical Ethics as established by the House of Delegates.

40.

UNIFORM ABORTION ACT

SECTION 1. [Abortion Defined; When Authorized.]

(a) “Abortion” means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.

(b) An abortion may be performed in this state only if it is performed:

(1) by a physician licensed to practice medicine [or osteopathy] in this state or by a physician practicing medicine [or osteopathy] in the employ of the government of the United States or of this state, [and the abortion is performed] [in the physician's office or in a medical clinic, or] in a hospital approved by the [Department of Health] or operated by the United States, this state, or any department, agency, [or political subdivision of either;] or by a female upon herself upon the advice of the physician; and

(2) within [20] weeks after the commencement of the pregnancy [or after [20] weeks only if the physician has reasonable cause to believe (i) there is a substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother or would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother, (ii) that the child would be born with grave physical or mental defect, or (iii) that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or illicit intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years].

SECTION 2. [Penalty.] Any person who performs or procures an abortion other than authorized by this Act is guilty of a [felony] and, upon conviction thereof, may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding [$1,000] or to imprisonment [in the state penitentiary] not exceeding [5 years], or both.

SECTION 3. [Uniformity of Interpretation.] This Act shall be construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among those states which enact it.

SECTION 4. [Short Title.] This Act may be cited as the Uniform Abortion Act.

SECTION 5. [Severability.] If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

SECTION 6. [Repeal.] The following acts and parts of acts are repealed:

(1)

(2)

(3)

SECTION 7. [Time of Taking Effect.] This Act shall take effect _________.

41.

This Act is based largely upon the New York abortion act following a review of the more recent laws on abortion in several states and upon recognition of a more liberal trend in laws on this subject. Recognition was given also to the several decisions in state and federal courts which show a further trend toward liberalization of abortion laws, especially during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Recognizing that a number of problems appeared in New York, a shorter time period for “unlimited” abortions was advisable. The time period was bracketed to permit the various states to insert a figure more in keeping with the different conditions that might exist among the states. Likewise, the language limiting the place or places in which abortions may be performed was also bracketed to account for different conditions among the states. In addition, limitations on abortions after the initial “unlimited” period were placed in brackets so that individual states may adopt all or any of these reasons, or place further restrictions upon abortions after the initial period.

This Act does not contain any provision relating to medical review committees or prohibitions against sanctions imposed upon medical personnel refusing to participate in abortions because of religious or other similar reasons, or the like. Such provisions, while related, do not directly pertain to when, where, or by whom abortions may be performed; however, the Act is not drafted to exclude such a provision by a state wishing to enact the same.

42. See, for example, YWCA v. Kugler, 342 F.Supp. 1048, 1074 (N.J.1972); Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800, 805-806 (Conn.1972) (Newman, J., concurring in result), appeal docketed, No. 72-56; Walsingham v. State, 250 So.2d 857, 863 (Ervin, J., concurring) (Fla.1971); State v. Gedicke, 43 N.J.L. 86, 90 (1881); Means II 381-382.

43. See C. Haagensen & W. Lloyd, A Hundred Years of Medicine 19 (1943).

44. Potts, Postconceptive Control of Fertility, 8 Int’l J. of G. & O. 957, 967 (1970) (England and Wales); Abortion Mortality, 20 Morbidity and Mortality 208, 209 (June 12, 1971) (U.S. Dept. of HEW, Public Health Service) (New York City); Tietze, United States: Therapeutic Abortions, 1963-1968, 59 Studies in Family Planning 5, 7 (1970); Tietze, Mortality with Contraception and Induced Abortion, 45 Studies in Family Planning 6 (1969) (Japan, Czechoslovakia, Hungary); Tietze Lehfeldt, Legal Abortion in Eastern Europe, 175 J.A.M.A. 1149, 1152 (April 1961). Other sources are discussed in Lader 17-23.

45. See Brief of Amicus National Right to Life Committee; R. Drinan, The Inviolability of the Right to Be Born, in Abortion and the Law 107 (D. Smith ed.1967); Louisell, Abortion, The Practice of Medicine and the Due Process of Law, 16 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 233 (1969); Noonan 1.

46. See, e.g., Abele v. Markle, 342 F.Supp. 800 (Conn.1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-56.

47. See discussions in Means I and Means II.

48. See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 27 N.J.L. 112, 114 (1858).

49. Watson v. State, 9 Tex.App. 237, 244-245 (1880); Moore v. State, 37 Tex. Cr.R. 552, 561, 40 S.W. 287, 290 (1897); Shaw v. State, 73 Tex.Cr.R. 337, 339, 165 S.W. 930, 931 (1914); Fondren v. State, 74 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 557, 169 S.W. 411, 414 (1914); Gray v. State, 77 Tex.Cr.R. 221, 229, 178 S.W. 337, 341 (1915). There is no immunity in Texas for the father who is not married to the mother. Hammett v. State, 84 Tex.Cr.R. 635, 209 S.W. 661 (1919); Thompson v. State (Ct.Crim.App. Tex.1971), appeal docketed, No. 71-1200.

50. See Smith v. State, 33 Me. at 55; In re Vince, 2 N.J. 443, 450, 67 A.2d 141, 144 (1949). A short discussion of the modern law on this issue is contained in the Comment to the ALI’s Model Penal Code § 207.11, at 158 and nn. 35-37 (Tent.Draft No. 9, 1959).

51. Tr. of Oral Rearg. 20-21.

52. Tr. of Oral Rearg. 24.

53. We are not aware that in the taking of any census under this clause, a fetus has ever been counted.

54. When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother’s condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment’s command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that, in Texas, the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

55. Cf. the Wisconsin abortion statute, defining “unborn child” to mean “a human being from the time of conception until it is born alive,” Wis.Stat. § 940.04(6) (1969), and the new Connecticut statute, Pub.Act No. 1 (May 1972 special session), declaring it to be the public policy of the State and the legislative intent “to protect and preserve human life from the moment of conception.”

56. Edelstein 16.

57. Lader 97-99; D. Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law 251-294 (1968). For a stricter view, see I. Jakobovits, Jewish Views on Abortion, in Abortion and the Law 124 (D. Smith ed.1967).

58. Amicus Brief for the American Ethical Union et al. For the position of the National Council of Churches and of other denominations, see Lader 99-101.

59. Hellman & J. Pritchard, Williams Obstetrics 493 (14th ed.1971); Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 1689 (24th ed.1965).

60. Hellman & Pritchard, supra, n. 59, at 493.

61. For discussions of the development of the Roman Catholic position, see D. Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice, and Morality 409-447 (1970); Noonan 1.

62. See Brodie, The New Biology and the Prenatal Child, 9 J.Family L. 391, 397 (1970); Gorney, The New Biology and the Future of Man, 15 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 273 (1968); Note, Criminal Law — Abortion — The “Morning-After Pill” and Other Pre-Implantation Birth-Control Methods and the Law, 46 Ore.L.Rev. 211 (1967); G. Taylor, The Biological Time Bomb 32 (1968); A. Rosenfeld, The Second Genesis 138-139 (1969); Smith, Through a Test Tube Darkly: Artificial Insemination and the Law, 67 Mich.L.Rev. 127 (1968); Note, Artificial Insemination and the Law, 1968 U.Ill.L.F. 203.

63. W. Prosser, The Law of Torts 335-338 (4th ed.1971); 2 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts 1028-1031 (1956); Note, 63 Harv.L.Rev. 173 (1949).

64. See cases cited in Prosser, supra, n. 63, at 336-338; Annotation, Action for Death of Unborn Child, 15 A.L.R.3d 992 (1967).

65. Prosser, supra, n. 63, at 338; Note, The Law and the Unborn Child: The Legal and Logical Inconsistencies, 46 Notre Dame Law. 349, 354-360 (1971).

66. Louisell, Abortion, The Practice of Medicine and the Due Process of Law, 16 U.C.L.A.L.Rev. 233, 235-238 (1969); Note, 56 Iowa L.Rev. 994, 999-1000 (1971); Note, The Law and the Unborn Child, 46 Notre Dame Law. 349, 351-354 (1971).

67. Neither in this opinion nor in Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, do we discuss the father’s rights, if any exist in the constitutional context, in the abortion decision. No paternal right has been asserted in either of the cases, and the Texas and the Georgia statutes on their face take no cognizance of the father. We are aware that some statutes recognize the father under certain circumstances. North Carolina, for example, N.C.Gen.Stat. § 14-45.1 (Supp. 1971), requires written permission for the abortion from the husband when the woman is a married minor, that is, when she is less than 18 years of age, 41 N.C.A.G. 489 (1971); if the woman is an unmarried minor, written permission from the parents is required. We need not now decide whether provisions of this kind are constitutional.

Rev. Chuck Baldwin on the future

It Is Going To Be A Rocky Road
By Chuck Baldwin
September 22, 2009

Let’s face it: most Americans live in a world of false security. This is
somewhat understandable, given the fact that the majority of the U.S.
population was born after 1945. Few remember the dangers and hardships of
World War II; fewer still remember the Great Depression. Few Americans know
what it’s like to not have some sort of “supercenter” nearby with shelves
stocked with every kind of food imaginable, twenty-four hours a day. Few
know what life was like before there were restaurants of all sizes and types
on virtually every street corner in America. And only a handful remembers
when most roads were unpaved, or when sports were truly a pastime and not a
megabuck obsession.

Modern living within the world’s only “superpower” has created a giant
unsuspecting, soft, lackadaisical, and lethargic society. We expect the
government to keep our streets safe, our roads paved, our stores stocked,
our jobs secure, and our enemies at bay. However, in the desire to make
government the panacea for all our problems, we have sold not only our
independence, but also our virtue.

Where the federal government was contracted (via the U.S. Constitution) to
accept limited power for the overall good of both states and people, it has
become a monster of gargantuan proportions, claiming authority over
virtually every liberty and right known to man. And in the process, it
decided it didn’t need God, either.

It is no hyperbole to say that the U.S. federal government has been on a
“Ban God” bandwagon for the past 50 years. Whether it kicks prayer and Bible
reading out of school, bars military chaplains from praying in Jesus’ name,
burns Bibles in Iraq, removes state supreme court chief justices from their
positions for posting the Ten Commandments, or threatens high school
principals with jail for asking the blessing, the federal government has
invoked the judgment of Heaven upon our country as surely as did Old
Testament Israel.

Although the comfortable, sports-crazed, TV addicts probably aren’t paying
attention, this country is on the verge of an implosion like you cannot
believe. For anyone who cares to notice, the signs are everywhere.

First of all, Israel and Iran are on the verge of war. And right now, I’m
not concentrating on the “why” or “who’s right or wrong” of the equation.
I’m simply telling you, war between Israel and Iran could break out at any
time. And when it does, the chances that it will not become nuclear and not
become global are miniscule. Yes, I am saying it: the prospects for nuclear
war have never been greater. The CBS-canceled TV show, JERICHO, could become
a reality in these United States in the very near future. (I strongly urge
readers to purchase both seasons of JERICHO and watch them, because this
could be our future.)

Secondly, America is on the verge of total financial collapse. By the end of
this year, America’s budget deficit will stand at around $2 trillion. The
debt gap is many trillions more than that. But the nail in the coffin for
America’s fiscal health will be the decision by China to dump the U.S.
dollar. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be the death knell for our financial
stability (and a painful lesson in sowing and reaping).

It is estimated that China owns around one-third of all U.S. debt. If and
when China dumps the U.S. dollar, there would be nothing left to stabilize
it, and Weimar Republic/Zimbabwe-style inflation will ensue. America will be
thrust into financial chaos. (If one doubts that China is planning to dump
the dollar, consider that China is currently purchasing and stockpiling gold
at an unprecedented level. This is why gold has suddenly surged to over
$1,000 per ounce and why it will continue to rise.)

Third, the paranoia regarding the Swine Flu being demonstrated by both
government and media spokesmen begs a giant push for some type of
“government solution.” If they keep hyping this “pandemic,” mass hysteria
and fear (created by the government and its lackeys in the media) will
result. This would, no doubt, necessitate some form of forced vaccination,
quarantine (maybe this is what all those internment camps will be used for),
and martial law.

Exactly how and when all of the above will actually materialize is yet to be
seen. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that within the next few
months, the world that we know today is going to vanish. And most Americans
are totally unprepared for what’s coming.

If you are able to get out of debt, do it. If you need to scale down your
lifestyle in order to be better prepared for difficult days, do it. If you
don’t have guns and ammo, buy them. If you have not prepared some sort of
preserved food pantry, do it. If you don’t have some kind of survival plan
in place for you and your family, get one. If you are not physically fit,
get in shape. If you are able to move to a more secure, out-of-harm’s-way
location, do it. (During any kind of financial or societal meltdown, urban
areas will quickly turn into war zones. Can anyone say, “New Orleans after
Hurricane Katrina”?) In other words, get your nose out of the boob tube, get
your bottom off the easy chair, and get busy.

Am I worried or discouraged? Absolutely not! (But I am preparing.) The
potential good that may result from all of the above is that perhaps God
will protect and raise up a remnant of people who would be willing to
rebuild a place where Natural Law is respected, constitutional government is
revered, and where a ubiquitous, loathsome, overbearing federal government
is far, far away. You know, like America’s Founding Fathers did 233 years
ago.

In the meantime, get ready. It’s going to be a rocky road.

Open letter to Obama’s Health Care Speech

Ref: The Legal Eye Vol. 33 Issue 1 September 3, 2009
Cure for the Health Care Malady; Socialized Medicine, the Apple in the Garden of Eden, James Degerome, M.D.
HR 3200
The Wall Street Journal Vol CCLIV NO. 61, Medicare for Dummies Staff p A 18
Ibid. Medicare is no Model for Health Reform, Grace-Marie Turner p A 19
TWSJ articles too numerous to cite

Fewer than 7 million Americans lack health care coverage due to the inability to pay the premiums. Currently, Blue Cross/ Blue Shield, Insuracare and certain other private insurance companies have programs similar to the pharmaceutical companies’ programs where an assigned risk pool is available or discount rates for those who qualify. Dr. Degerome’s book has pages of statistics from reliable sources, the United Nations not being one of them, proving this point. As Dr. Degerome points out, selling policies across state lines is the problem for these companies. As I recall from when I clerked at (law firm), as do most states, regulates and controls insurance companies as a State’s Right.
Being 17th of 191 as determined by the United Nations is irrelevant without knowing the criteria for this determination. Keep in mind that most of those people get rationed care and that the quality of care is very different from that given in the United States as are their tort laws . The United Nations has a history of manipulating statistics and emotions for its own purposes. I draw your attention to The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon’s, Ph.D., book for how the U. N. conveniently ignores reams of scientific data and misquotes and misinterprets scientific reports in order to enhance its budgets and increase its bureaucratic empires.
As for the cost of insurance premiums, they are determined mostly by a mix of the market, which includes the assigned risk pool, and state regulation. Insurance premiums include the lack of tort reform, just as does HR 3200. Keep in mind that John Edwards, Esq., made millions channeling children who have died or been injured of cerebral palsy claiming medical malpractice when, in fact, there is no proof whatsoever of the connection between the approved medical protocols and the occurrence/ incidence of CP. Or that a person taking Vioxx for less than nine months having a heart attack, and the FDA tests show that risk of coronary issues only occurs after 18+ months of use, being awarded a punitive award of $250,000,000.00 and a life award of $50,000,000.00. Dr. Degerome’s book has much more on this as well as a budget neutral and very workable solution.
As for the “15%” uncovered Americans, 1/3 are illegal aliens, 1/3 qualify for Medicaid, and approximately 1/6, don’t want it.
As for those other countries, keep in mind that France just went to co-pays and has shut down its rural birthing centers and Ob/Gyn clinics. Canadians come here for care, look up the Canadian Supreme Court cases for the last ten years and read how their Supremes keep telling the Canadian Government that they have to keep paying the U. S. hospitals and doctors. Consider, the Italian Prime Minister came here for cancer care. As for U.S. government health care, you might want to see how many health citations the VA Hospital here in (city) has racked up. How’s the VA hospital there in (city) doing?
As for the actual implementation of HR 3200, look how its fore runner has bankrupted Massachusetts. Look how the death counseling has actually been implemented in Oregon.
But of more importance to you, the law student, where is the constitutionality of it? There isn’t any. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Robert R. Livingston, (Phila. Pa, April 30, 1800) (speaking satirically)

We are here engaged in improving our constitution by construction, so as to make it what the majority thinks it should have been.
And to Wilson Cary Nicholas (Monticello September 7, 1803) When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless.
And, to Spencer Roane, (Monticello, October 12, 1815) I hope our courts will never countenance the sweeping pretensions which have been set up under the words “general defense and public welfare.” These words only express the motives which induced the Convention to give to the legislature certain specified powers which they enumerate, and which they thought might be trusted to the ordinary legislature, and not to give them the unspecified also; or why any specification?

More importantly, to my mind and great unease, is that neither point looks to how it will be implemented. It is rife with the enabling of The Executive to determine everything encompassed by the words, health care. Pay attention to the details. The Executive will have complete power, through its use of regulation, to determine every aspect of health care . Consider the appointment of the Regulation Czar Sumstein, and his published works advocating animal rights equal to yours. Sumstein advocates that all animals have standing in federal court to sue for ‘inhumane treatment’ and ‘pain and suffering’. Consider the current absolute failure of the Medicare Review Process as implemented by the Health Care Financing Agency (HCFA). Where is the over-sight, will it be in a CFR? One written by a non-medical bureaucrat GS-7?
And HIPA, too. Consider the cost of health care before HIPA, where hospital wards existed, and now, where, because of the federal law guaranteeing privacy, everyone gets a private room, what cost that? And the federal law requiring that Emergency Rooms must stabilize whoever shows up for whatever reason before releasing them regardless of the cost; said cost being shifted to (correspondent’s) “exorbitant” premium.
You should be concerned that the people who will interpret the act are federal judges. The appointment of the racist incompetent Sotomayer to the Supreme Court should tell you how this act will be interpreted. From the historical perspective, regardless of what is passed, the 9th Circuit will rule that every person in the geographical confines of these United States, will get health care under the act and get it for all medical procedures. Think that’s a joke? Look what the Supremes did to health care in California in the 1970’s and 1980’s and to education in Texas in the 1980’s when dealing with the issues of abortion and illegal aliens receiving care, education, school lunches and vaccinations.
Better yet, if you Shepardize the following, remember that no matter how restricted its been, it still hasn’t been overturned:

Rector, &c of Holy Trinity Church v U. S., 143 U.S. 457 (1892): It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of (the law) … It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the Reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator; for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.

Keep in mind Obama’s future appointments; keep in mind his 32 Czars ; keep in mind that there’s no tort reform in this bill; keep in mind that the accumulated debt for SSA & Medicare will reach $63,000,000,000,000.00 (sixty three trillion dollars) between 2022 and 2042, (SSA goes bankrupt in 2022, Medicare using the current payment schedule in 2042) and that the Gross National Product per annum is now slightly over $12,000,000,000,000.00 (twelve trillion dollars; the global near seventy-two trillion).
Strongly suggest that your two correspondents read Dr. Degrerome’s book and the various laws.
And for those of us who live in the republican democracy, where the majority supposedly rules, and the 1787 Constitution is the organic law, that surveys show that over 80% of us are satisfied with our health care.

Current Indonesian Adoption Law

Read carefully, and wonder, what first, what preceded the 2002 law, and what were the conditions of adoption when Obama became Soetoro? Did the include the religious requirement? Did they include the statehood requirement?
This book is an excellent compendium of translations of Indonesian legal concepts into the terminology of the English language of law. Indonesian law is defined in a clear and concise format. Updated annually with the latest rules and regulations, this indispensable reference covers over 90 substantive subjects including: anti-trust, arbitration, banking, business organizations, capital markets, contracts, courts, criminal, debtor and creditor, documents and records, employment and immigration, estates and trusts, family law, finance and securities, foreign investment and trade, government and legal system, intellectual property, marriage and divorce, property ownership, property rights, sales, taxation, telecommunications, treaties and conventions.
For more complete information on the legal system in Indonesia, purchase Sriro’s Desk Reference of Indonesian Law 2009 by Andrew I. Sriro.
The book is also available at the various Jakarta branches of Kinokuniya, Aksara and Periplus bookstores, as well as the Periplus kiosks at the airport.

Excerpts from the Desk Reference … on Family Law
Family Adoptions
Adoption (pengangkatan anak) is governed by Law No. 23 of 2002 dated 22nd of Oct. 2002 concerning Child Protection; Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 44/HUK/1997 dated 31st of July 1997 concerning Fostering of Children Welfare through Adoption; Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 2/HUK/1995 dated 25th of Jan. 1995 concerning Completion of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993 concerning Implementation of Adoption; Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 1979 dated 7th of Apr. 1979 concerning Adoption; and Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 6 of 1983 dated 30th of Sept. 1983 concerning Completion of Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 1979 concerning Adoption.
Adoptions may only be implemented if in best interests of adoptive child. (Art. 39(1) of Law No. 23 of 2002 dated 22nd of Oct. 2002 concerning Child Protection). Adoptive parents must have same religion with adoptive child. (Id. at Art. 39(3)). Adoption by foreign citizens may only be conducted as last resort. (Id. at Art. 39(4)). Government and society provide guidance and supervision relating to adoption. (Id. at Art. 41(1)).
Three categories of adoptions are recognized in Indonesia: (i) adoptions of Indonesian citizens by Indonesian citizens (Point 1(1) of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 2/HUK/1995 dated 25th of Jan. 1995 amending Section II(3)(a) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993 concerning Implementation of Adoption); (ii) adoptions of Indonesian citizens by non-Indonesian citizens (id. amending Section II.3(b)); and (iii) adoptions of foreign citizens by Indonesian citizens (id. amending Section II.3(c)). Adoptions must be approved by Minister of Social Affairs and registered with Department of Social Affairs. (Section IV(1) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993).
Adoptive parents must: (i) have been married for at least five years unless doctor’s letter certifying impossibility of having children is submitted with adoption application (Point 1(2) of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 2/HUK/1995 amending Section V(A)(1)(a) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993); (ii) be between ages of 30 and 45 years (Section V(A)(1)(b) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993); (iii) have no more than one child (id. at Section V(A)(1)(c)); (iv) be of sound financial, physical and spiritual condition (id. at Section V(A)(1)(d) and (f)); (v) have good behaviour based on statement issued by Indonesian Police (id. at Section V(A)(1)(e)); (vi) provide written statement stating adoption is conducted for child’s welfare (id. at Section V(A)(1)(g)); (vii) provide social report (laporan sosial) (id. at Section V(A)(1)(h)); (viii) have taken care of adoptive child for at least six months based on permit from Area Office Head of Department of Social Affairs (id. at Section VI(1)); and additionally, foreign adoptive parent applicants must: (a) obtain written agreement from state government of which they hold citizenship (id. at Section V(A)(2)(b)); and (b) have been working and living legally in Indonesia for at least two consecutive years supported by statement issued by authorized official (Point 1(3) of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 2/HUK/1995 amending Section V(A)(2)(c) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993); (c) provide periodical report on child’s development through Indonesian embassy in adoptive parent’s respective country (Section V(A)(2)(d) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993).
Foreign citizen children adopted by Indonesian adoptive parents and Indonesian citizen children adopted by foreign citizen parents may not be older than five years. (Point 1(4) of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 2/HUK/1995 amending Section V(A)(3)(b) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993). Foreign citizens may not adopt children who are already under parental care. (Section XI(1) of Attachment of Decree of Minister of Social Affairs No. 13/HUK/1993).
Examination of motives of adoptive parents and parents giving up child, including their sincerity, seriousness and awareness of consequences of adoption is substantial element of adoption process. (Point IV(3)(A)(3) (3.1) and (3.2) of Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 6 of 1983 dated 30th of Sept. 1983 concerning Completion of Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 1979 concerning Adoption).
For more information, see the Legal Matters in Indonesia Forum page.

HB 1388, Soetoro-Obama brings Hamas home

HB 1388 and:

 

Presidential Documents

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

 

NOTICE: Part II

DOCID: fr04fe09-106

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

[[Page 6115]]
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488
Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P

[1. Might want to check with your "elected representative" on how he voted on this, and why, and how this protects your security.

2. How's this for separation of church and state? When the Sunni's and Shi'a's where murdering over one million Christians, no one did anything for them.]

End of Free Speech; ABC turns Marxist; Obama & Chavez TV network

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED
> FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
> Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
>
> On the night of June 24, the media and government become
> one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama
> and White House officials to push government run health care
> — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
>
> Highlights on the agenda:
>
> ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from
> the Blue Room of the White House.
>
> The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription
> for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude
> opposing voices on the debate.
>
> MORE
>
> Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of
> Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of
> ABCNEWS:
>
> Dear Mr. Westin:
>
> As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I
> am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s
> astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this
> critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News
> will air a primetime health care reform “town
> hall� at the White House with President Barack Obama.
> In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING
> AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news
> “will all feature special programming on the
> president’s health care agenda.� This does not
> include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the
> president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC
> News programming.
>
> Today, the Republican National Committee requested an
> opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the
> President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care
> reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I
> believe that the President should have the ability to speak
> directly to the America people. However, I find it
> outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing
> thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects
> millions of ABC viewers.
>
> In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event
> will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat
> agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial
> should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama
> does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on
> free airtime. The President has stated time and time again
> that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican
> Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC
> should pay for your airtime.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ken McKay
> Republican National Committee
> Chief of Staff

Death of the First Amendment; Death of a Free Press; True meaning of “the Fairness Doctrine”

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED
> FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
> Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
>
> On the night of June 24, the media and government become
> one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama
> and White House officials to push government run health care
> — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
>
> Highlights on the agenda:
>
> ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from
> the Blue Room of the White House.
>
> The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription
> for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude
> opposing voices on the debate.
>
> MORE
>
> Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of
> Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of
> ABCNEWS:
>
> Dear Mr. Westin:
>
> As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I
> am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s
> astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this
> critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News
> will air a primetime health care reform “town
> hall� at the White House with President Barack Obama.
> In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING
> AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news
> “will all feature special programming on the
> president’s health care agenda.� This does not
> include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the
> president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC
> News programming.
>
> Today, the Republican National Committee requested an
> opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the
> President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care
> reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I
> believe that the President should have the ability to speak
> directly to the America people. However, I find it
> outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing
> thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects
> millions of ABC viewers.
>
> In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event
> will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat
> agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial
> should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama
> does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on
> free airtime. The President has stated time and time again
> that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican
> Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC
> should pay for your airtime.
>
> Respectfully,
> Ken McKay
> Republican National Committee
> Chief of Staff