ABC News wrings its hands over "Why Have So Many States Banned Abortions?"

Maybe it's because of young men who are now growing up, realizing the truth, like the young fellow in the post just above this one.

Maybe it's because of young women like this one.

Laws changing are only the by-product.

As a friend of mine says, "Abortion will end because of one thing only, the grace of God and the healing of our nation. His personal touch on hearts, calling them to the truth and the dignity of all life, both before and after abortion."

I believe that is why this is happening. That personal touch on hearts. The healing. It's spreading. Like wildfire, actually, and has been for at least 14-15 years. Retreats and recovery services like this one, that one and that whole list of them, just for men, and so many more (in our sidebar are all the links).

All those, happening multiple times a year, every year, multiple places around the world, with 5 to 20 women (and some men) at each and every one of them, seeking healing, seeking redemption over their abortions or their involvement in one.

You can't help but see how the critical mass is being reached, over all this time. How so many hearts and souls are being helped.

I feel sorry for those (even those hardened, P.C., journalists at ABC) who wring their hands over diminished "choice", because they, like I used to do, cannot open themselves to the truth. The medical, scientific truth of what--who--is created at conception, according to medical school textbooks for I don't know how many decades of time in this nation.

It's ironic how they describe this phenomenon as "a poke of a stick in the eye of the Supreme Court, to dare them to take the case."

That was exactly the strategy of the NAACP when it went after racism as legalized by the Supreme Court.

The NAACP, led by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Houston, peppered the nine Supreme Court justices from 1935 through 1954, almost 20 years, with case after case after case to overturn the racial segregation "right" that was created (yes, CREATED, just like "right to choose" was created) by the high court's Plessy v. Ferguson case. They just kept filing more and more cases, until the critical mass of change had been reached incrementally and Brown v. Board of Education came along and finally achieved justice.

From the website of The Just Beginning Foundation (about the contribution of African Americans to the federal judiciary):

"The N.A.A.C.P.'s strategy for reaching its goals in education began by trying to undo the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 (163 U.S. 537), in which the Supreme Court said that segregation was valid if it was 'separate but equal.' The N.A.A.C.P.'s. legal committee decided that the only way to accomplish meaningful change was to attack Plessy. Initially the goal was to demonstrate that the state which created separate school systems never, in fact, created "equal" systems. Eventually, this changed to a frontal assault on Plessy: separate was inherently unequal.

"In 1935, Charles Houston suggested that the N.A.A.C.P. adopt a strategy of litigating planned test cases to secure favorable legal precedents, thereby laying the foundation for later, fuller attacks on racial discrimination and segregation. The cases were to have a "sharply defined legal issue" that could be "supported by demonstrable evidence."

Sadly, the JBF took down that page, though it exists in the Wayback Machine web archive.

I've written several times over the past few years, asking folks to imagine the states, at some point, passing abortion bans that get struck down and then peppering the Supreme Court ultimately over the next few decades. Imagine a critical mass being reached where the justices finally acknowledge the facts of which Judge Edith Jones spoke when she wrote the decision to pass Roe v. Wade on up to the Supreme Court:

"The perverse result of the [Supreme] court's having determined through constitutional adjudication [i.e., Roe v. Wade] this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter. This is a peculiar outcome for a court so committed to 'life' that it struggles with the particular facts of dozens of death penalty cases each year...

That the court's constitutional decision making leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

What were "the facts" and "evolving knowledge" Jones referred to?

This evidence included 1,000 affidavits from women who've had abortions and claim they have suffered long-term emotional damage. It also offered studies by scientists finding that women can be damaged physically and emotionally by having an abortion.

"In sum, if courts were to delve into the facts underlying Roe's balancing scheme with present-day knowledge, they might conclude that the woman's 'choice' is far more risky and less beneficial, and the child's sentience far more advanced, than the Roe court knew," wrote Jones...

"One may fervently hope that the Court will someday acknowledge such developments and re-evaluate Roe…accordingly."

My affidavit was one of those thousand.

But you won't get ANY of this from ABC News. Nor CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, or almost any other "news reporting agency."

Just because you don't get it from them, doesn't mean it isn't true or isn't happening. IT IS.

When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court, this was his assessment of overturning Roe:

"In his testimony, Judge Roberts described Brown v. Board of Education as a 'restrained' decision. In ruling that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, Brown effectively overruled the nearly six-decades-old error of Plessy v. Ferguson, and its removal of government-sponsored segregation from the political processes predictably resulted in tremendous disruption of established practices. Overturning Roe would lead to far less disruption, as it would return the issue of abortion policy to the people to determine through their elected representatives."

In other words, exactly what is happening now, as described in such a pitifully-liberally-biased manner by ABC News.