How to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Abortion is the worst sin America has, and God definitely will not spare our Country from destruction, if we do not abolish it.

In this document, I will prove that abortion is unconstitutional, and that the President has the power and duty to uphold the Constitution by banning abortion through an executive order.

Most of the assumptions that Roe v. Wade was decided on have now been proven false. Some of these false assumptions include:

  • Abortion is safe for women, especially in the first trimester.
  • A woman’s decision to have an abortion would always be informed and voluntary.
  • Viability was a proper measurement of when the State had an interest in protecting the unborn.

The Court also said in Roe v. Wade that it was unknown at that time when human life begins. We now have irrefutable scientific proof that human life begins at fertilization, and I will discuss this further, later in this document.

About 12 years ago the State of South Dakota put together a task force to study abortion and learn rather or not laws needed to be changed concerning it. Then based on the findings of this task force (which included testimonies, from various doctors on both sides of the abortion issue, and almost 2,000 testimonies from women who had had abortions) the State of South Dakota tried to amend their Constitution to outlaw abortion, hoping to challenge Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court based on these findings.

Unfortunately, since it was a proposed State Constitutional amendment, the people had to vote to ratify it. Planned Parenthood spent millions of dollars on advertisements and got the majority of the people in South Dakota to defeat the amendment.

I have the report from the South Dakota Abortion Task Force proving that abortion can and must now be overturned. You can read it and download it as a pdf at .

All links on this page open in a new tab.

Anytime there is new compelling evidence that a prior Constitutional decision was in error, the Supreme Court has a duty to reexamine the issue, and make sure that proper remedies are put in place to satisfy the Constitution. Each Supreme Court Justice has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution.

First, I want to give some information on two really important Supreme Court abortion cases:

Roe v. Wade

You can read the majority and dissenting decisions and download them as a single pdf at

Roe v. Wade was a case concerning a young woman named Norma McCorvey (Roe) who was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, but could not legally obtain one under the laws of the State of Texas where she resided. Fortunately, her baby was already born, by the time her case was decided.

In Roe v Wade, the majority of the Supreme Court erroneously decided that an unborn child is not a person, and that a woman has the right to have an abortion according to the liberty concept in the due process clause of the 14th amendment See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 140-147 (1973) (Pp. 28-35 of pdf).

The Court also said that conception appears to be a process rather than an event, partly based on the reality of implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and the use of artificial wombs Roe, 410 U.S. at 146 (P. 34 in pdf).

This is why we must now use the word fertilization to legally define when life begins, instead of conception.

The Court also refused to determine when life begins, Roe, 410 U.S. at 145 (P. 33 in pdf) leaving the question open for future reexamination as our knowledge of science increased. We now have scientific proof of when life begins, and this is one of the main reasons why Roe needs to be reexamined at this time.

Roe prohibited all legal regulation of abortion between a woman and her doctor in the first trimester of pregnancy, because the baby is not viable yet, and the Court wrongfully assumed that abortion in the first trimester was safe for women Roe, 410 U.S. at 139 (P.37 in pdf).

Now after 44 years of legalized abortion, there is plenty of evidence, including testimonies from women who have had abortions, that an abortion at any stage of pregnancy is physically, mentally, and emotionally damaging to women.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the State must protect women’s health Roe, 410 U.S. at 147 (P. 35 in pdf).

In addition, in the opinion of Roe v. Wade the Court also said that if an unborn child were to ever be legally defined as a person then his or her life would immediately come under the protection of the 14th Amendment, with no exceptions, not even to save the mother’s life. Women would be prosecuted for willfully having an abortion. Also, penalties for abortion would have to be the same as the penalties for murder. Roe, 410 U.S. at 164-165 (Pp. 52-53 in pdf). This is consistent with Scripture Ezekiel 16:38, and I agree with it.

Sometimes it is impossible to save the life of an unborn child, just like it is impossible to save the life of a cancer patient, but everything possible should be done to save them. And more technologies need to be developed, to be able to save babies at younger ages.

It is not right to kill one person to save the life of another. Self-sacrifice for another is a different matter. A pre-born child cannot make that decision. As I said above, doctors should be required to always do everything they can to save both lives, not just automatically revert to killing the baby because it is easy. And better technologies need to be encouraged.

Most of the time anymore an abortion is not necessary to save the mother’s life, many times even babies in a tubal pregnancy can be saved now, and so can the mother. It is true that in the past concerning a tubal pregnancy the medical establishment knew of no other choice but to remove the baby and let it die, because there was no hope of the baby surviving. Fortunately, due to advances in technology, many times a baby in this kind of situation can now be saved (Fortenberry, B., (2015). Ectopic Personhood. Retrieved from:

Unfortunately, though, many doctors will lie and say babies cannot be saved, when they can be, because abortion is legal, and it is much easier and cheaper to just let the baby die, instead of trying to save it. Also, money for research into life-saving technologies for babies in tubal pregnancies and very premature babies is hindered, because abortion is legal. Therefore, the sad reality is that because abortion is legal, many babies are dying, because their parents, who want them, are lied to, and told that they cannot be saved, and now insurances would probably refuse to pay for the baby’s life to be saved. I don’t see how this is upholding women’s rights!

Justice William Rehnquist stood alone in his dissent from the Majority opinion in Roe v. Wade and said that abortion is not a fundamental right, and abortion was not within the original intent of the 14th Amendment Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 174-175 (1973) (dissenting opinion) (Pp. 62-63 in pdf).

For a right to be fundamental it must be historically and traditionally founded in the principles of jurisprudence. Since America’s founding and even in English law abortion was never considered a fundamental right. It had always been restricted and regulated by laws, and at times even banned.

Many times, abortion was only legal in cases where the health or life of the mother was in danger, or only before quickening (when the mother could feel the baby move). Hundreds of years ago they did not have the scientific knowledge or technology that we have today, so many people believed that life did not begin until quickening. And because it was believed that the baby was alive at quickening, many laws were passed to ban abortion after quickening.

Therefore, it is a historical and traditional legal principle that the government must protect the lives of unborn children!

Furthermore, at the time of the Roe decision, and for the previous century since the 14th Amendment, abortion was strictly regulated by most States, and even banned in some.

Justice Rehnquist also stated that the Court should not have banned regulations for abortions in the first trimester, because there was no evidence that Roe was in her first trimester when the case was filed Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 172 (1973) (dissenting opinion) (P. 60 in pdf).

I found it interesting that in the case of Roe v. Wade Justice Rehnquist was just an associate justice. But then 13 years later in 1986 God exalted him to Chief Justice. God rewards those who stand for truth.

In addition, in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 Chief Justice Rehnquist said from the onset that he wanted to use this case to fully overturn Roe v. Wade. He then courageously led the fight to do just that, unfortunately though, only 3 other justices joined him. Only 4 justices ruled to completely overturn Roe v. Wade in this 1992 case, they were just 1 justice short from the needed majority of 5.

I will discuss this case in more detail now.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey:

You can read the majority and dissenting decisions in this case and download them as a single pdf at

In this case Planned Parenthood sued Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania for passing a law that imposed regulations on abortion that did not exempt the first trimester.

The Court upheld all of these regulations, except for the husband notification.

These regulations included:

  1. Informed consent of the woman (upheld) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 872 (1992) (P. 40 of pdf).
  2. A 24-hour waiting period after the woman receives the information concerning abortion (upheld) at 881 (P. 49 of pdf)
  3. Parental consent for a minor (upheld) at 899 (P. 67 of pdf)
  4. Strict reporting requirements for abortion facilities (upheld all except for husband notification) at 900 (P. 68 of pdf)
  5. Exemption for medical emergencies (upheld) at 879-880 (Pp. 47-48 of pdf)
  6. Husband notification for married women (struck down) at 887-898 (Pp. 55-66 of pdf)

Unfortunately, fathers do not have any legally recognized right in this Country to protect the lives of their unborn children.

The Majority’s opinion particularly appalls me on this point. They strongly indicated that husbands do not even have the right to restrict their pregnant wives from doing activity that may be harmful to the unborn child, even smoking and drinking alcohol! There is plenty of evidence to show that alcohol is injurious to an unborn baby! I guess they also meant even other very risky physical activities such as sky diving too!

This is completely absurd! The right of fathers to protect their unborn babies from harm is unalienable, and therefore, must be legally recognized. Rights come from God not government. The government’s job is to protect those God-given rights.

Talk about the breakdown of the family in this Country!

The Bible plainly says that the husband has authority over his wife’s body, and the wife has authority over her husband’s body (1 Corinthians 7:4). It is not overstretching to say that this includes the husband having the authority to prohibit his pregnant wife from having an abortion, or engaging in activity that may cause harm to herself and/or their unborn child. Furthermore, fathers are responsible for the welfare of their children (I Timothy 5:8). The law needs to uphold the God-given right of fathers to protect their unborn children.

Furthermore, the majority of the Court acknowledged the historical and traditional common law precedent that the husband is the head and authority of the wife, but utterly rejected it simply because they did not like it Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 897 (1992) (P. 65 of pdf).

This rejected precedent desperately needs to be reestablished. The family is the first building block of society. If the family is not right, society cannot be right.

The 3 justices who joined Chief Justice Rehnquist in his opinion that Roe should be overturned (Scalia, Thomas, and White) also joined him in his opinion that all of the regulations of the Pennsylvania law should be upheld, including the husband notification Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 972-976 (1992) (opinion of Rehnquist, C. J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) (Pp. 140-144 of pdf).

One thing that really infuriated me, as a woman, was that Justice Blackmun really degrades pregnancy as a physical intrusion of the woman’s body that damages her bodily integrity Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 927 (1992). (P. 95 of pdf).

I know a lot of women who have children and I have never heard any woman say that she has this view of pregnancy. I do not even see this view of pregnancy in society. All the women I know, who have children, portray the attitude that their pregnancy was one of their most wonderful experiences, because they have their child.

Now, I have never had any children or been pregnant, but I do not see pregnancy this way either, and as a woman I find this statement by the Court very degrading to motherhood and offensive. This degrades children to level of cancer! If I ever marry, I plan to have children. Children are a blessing, and precious, they certainly are not an invading enemy that harms a woman’s bodily integrity, like my cancer was!

By what objective standard did these Justices make their degrading statement? They gave none. No published scientific facts, no surveys of women, nothing. This statement was totally subjective based upon these Justice’s personal opinions. Therefore, it should not have been a basis of their decision!

Today we even have scientific evidence that pregnancy can be good for a woman’s health, including decreased cancer risk (Crow, S., (2017). 6 Surprising Benefits of Pregnancy. Retrieved from: This article also speaks of studies that show that most women do have a positive view of their pregnancy experiences.

The Court’s statement has therefore now been invalidated!

The majority also ruled that restricting a woman from having an abortion infringes upon her right to make her own reproductive and family planning choices. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 927 (1992). (P. 95 of pdf).

When it comes to abortion, the child already exists. Once the child already exists, the woman has no right to stop its live birth. In the case of rape or incest, the woman should be allowed to put the child up for adoption, if she does not want to raise the child, but she does not have the right to end its life. In these cases, the government should lawfully prosecute and execute the father!

Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Moreover, the majority of the Court also completely overturned the trimester analysis of Roe and replaced it with an ambiguous “undue burden” analysis, which can be quite confusing. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 872-874 (1992). (Pp. 40-42 of pdf).

The Court said, “A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992). (P. 45 of pdf).

Justice Scalia dissented on this point in his opinion that the “undue burden” analysis for regulating of abortion was unworkable, because it was not clearly defined, and could be easily subjected to manipulation. See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 985-987 (1992). (Pp. 153-155 of pdf). I agree with Justice Scalia’s view.

Exactly what is a substantial obstacle? Upholding and striking down laws regulating abortion based on rather or not they place a substantial obstacle on a woman seeking an abortion, does not meet the requirements for legal precedence, because the outcome of this analysis will always be subjected to the justices’ personal feelings.

Court decisions are not to be decided according to the personal feelings of the judge or judges. They are to be decided upon undisputable facts.

Actually, this Court’s subjective standard of “undue burden” violates due process, because it is not due process for court decisions to be made on subjective standards based on the whims of judges!

At lease the trimester analysis of Roe v. Wade was an objective standard that could be definitely defined. The word “trimester” when speaking of pregnancy has an objective, undisputable definition of 3 months of pregnancy, because a normal pregnancy lasts 9 months, and tri means 3. Therefore, first trimester of pregnancy would mean first 3 months of pregnancy. Any judge can figure that out, and can easily be held accountable, if he does define it wrong in a ruling.

This undue burden analysis is not an objective standard that can be indisputably defined, it is a subjective standard that can change based upon the judge’s personal feelings. Therefore, it is an unacceptable legal analysis.

Although, for the time being this decision is partly beneficial, because the court used it to allow important regulations to be placed on abortion all throughout pregnancy, it is still very dangerous.

In 1992 the Supreme Court used this “undue burden” standard to uphold certain regulations for abortion, a later Court can just as easily overturn those same important regulations, simply because the majority of the judges feel that these regulations have become an undue burden. And it could just keep going back and forth every time there is a turnover in the Supreme Court, because there is no objective standard.

The subjective undue burden standard needs to be overturned and replaced with an objective standard of when human life begins. The standard should state the objective scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 24-25), and that human life is protected from that point until natural death.  This would effectively outlaw all abortions.

When it came to overturning Roe v. Wade, the majority in this case reaffirmed 3 points of the decision, instead of overturning it.

These 3 points were:

  1. The (so called) right of a woman to have an abortion before viability without any undue State interference.
  2. The State’s power to restrict abortions after viability as long as there are exceptions for the life and health of the mother.
  3. The State can protect the health of the mother and the life of the “…fetus that may become a child” (Their words not mine) See Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (P. 14 of pdf).

The majority ridiculously ruled that it could not overturn Roe because it was too much of a controversial issue, and by overturning it, they would appear to be giving into political pressure. Furthermore, that if they overturned Roe then it would harm the legitimacy of the Court, because most of society was still for Roe (this sounds like giving in to political pressure to me), and if the Court admits too many times that it has been wrong in its rulings, then the people will lose confidence in the Court. They also misapplied the legal doctrine of stare decisis to justify this ruling Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 865-866 (1992) (Pp. 33-34 of pdf).

Stare decisis means to, “stand by previous rulings.” However, as Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out in his dissent that stare decisis does not mean to stand by a previous decision if it was unconstitutional Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 954-955 (1992) (dissent opinion) (Pp. 122-123 of pdf).

The Court refusing to overturn Roe harmed its legitimacy, because it violated Constitutional standards in doing so.

Courts are made up of people, people are not perfect, and even the best judges will make mistakes. It does not hurt the legitimacy of a court to correct a previous error, it confirms that court’s legitimacy and commitment to uphold the Constitution.

The doctrine of stare decisis is there to make sure that rulings are not overturned, just because future judges don’t like them. They must have objective evidence proving that the previous decision was truly made in error in order to overturn it.

There has always been objective evidence that Roe v. Wade was erroneously decided, according to Constitutional standards. In Justice Rehnquist’s dissent to Roe v. Wade, he gave objective proofs that the majority had wrongly decided the case. Including the objective facts that abortion is not a fundamental right, and that the original intent of the 14th amendment did not include abortion Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 171-175 (1973) (dissenting opinion) (Pp. 59-63 of pdf).

According to the proper interpretation of stare decisis this alone is sufficient enough to overturn Roe v. Wade.

However, since the majority of the Court has always rejected these arguments. We must be able to bring before the Court other objective evidences, proving that Roe is unconstitutional. Those evidences are what I am going to discuss now.

The Findings of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion:

You can read their report and download it as a pdf at . I hope you will take the time to read this full report, there is so much more detail in it than I have written here.

This task force received expert witness from doctors on both sides of the abortion issue, employees of Planned Parenthood, crises pregnancy centers, and from almost 2,000 women who had had abortions.

Some of these testimonies are really shocking, and they completely tear down the facade that abortion is good for women, the unborn is just tissue, and that most women who have abortions are informed and submit to it voluntarily.

The Task Force found 6 assumptions of Roe that are now proven false.

6 Incorrect assumptions of Roe (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 8-10.)

  1. Could not decide when human life began.
  2. Assumed that the doctor would give his patient all truthful information.
  3. Assumed that motherhood and the raising of children forced upon a woman an adversely affected future and life and may cause mental and physical harm to the woman.
  4. Assumed that abortion would always be voluntary and informed.
  5. Assumed that abortion was safe and that pregnancy and labor were more detrimental to a woman’s health than an abortion.
  6. Assumed that unwed mothers faced a harsh social stigma

The task force received expert testimony from Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a nationally renowned molecular biologist, that DNA studies prove that human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and that each human being is whole and complete at fertilization. That one cell contains the child’s complete DNA and all the information for that child to continue to grow and develop. Therefore, a whole, complete, unique, human being is in existence in that one cell stage of life. Scientifically there is no difference between a human being at the one cell stage of life then a human being at the toddler, adolescent, or adult stages of life. It is still a separate, complete, unique human being at all stages of life, growth, and development. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 22-25).

Even the gender of the baby is already decided at fertilization (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 31).

This proves that an unborn child is never a part of the mother’s body, it is always a separate, unique human being.

Furthermore, when it comes to the child’s early development there are a few important things to note. The heart starts beating at 3 weeks gestation, and the baby is breathing and can hiccup by 10-12 weeks gestation, and the brain starts showing responses to pain by 9-10 weeks gestation. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 30, 60-61).

The fact that an unborn child can feel pain is now indisputable.

The nervous system develops first and some doctors believe that an unborn baby can feel pain as early as 5 ½ weeks gestation, because 2 neuropeptides and natural pain inhibitors called Substance P and enkephalin can be detected in neurons in the dorsal horn of the spinal cord by 5 weeks gestation. There is also substantial evidence showing that babies can feel pain at 7-8 weeks gestation, but the accepted belief among doctors, both those for and those against abortion, is that an unborn child starts to be able to feel pain at 23-24 weeks gestation. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 58-61).

Furthermore, doctors are so sure that preborn babies can feel pain that all preborn babies, at any gestational age, are given anesthesia if they need surgery (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 58).

Unborn babies can be diagnosed with medical problems as early as 8 weeks gestation, and surgery can be performed to put in shunts, do blood transfusions, and other procedures as early as 16 weeks gestation. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 26-27).

This means that it is generally accepted by abortion doctors that abortion is painful for unborn babies by 24 weeks gestation, and as a precaution anesthesia must be administered to all unborn babies at any gestational age. Yet this critical information is never given to a pregnant woman, when she goes to an abortion clinic.

In addition, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, an abortion doctor, who was one of the founders of NARAL and has committed about 75,000 abortions, actually admitted that most obstetricians and scientists know that abortion ends the life of a human being. But that he and others deny knowing this and intentionally hide it from women and the public, so that abortion will remain legal (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 12).

This is absolutely barbaric!

He also said that in committing an abortion the doctor is ending the life of one of his patients, who he is legally bound to protect. The ending of this patient’s life is only legal if the pregnant mother gives her consent, and she can only truly give her consent if she is truthfully informed that the unborn is an actual existing human being. To not give the woman this information violates her right to make her own decision. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 12).

I find this astounding that this doctor and founder of NARAL would admit that he routinely violates the Constitutional rights of women in order to kill their children for hire, when the whole reason for the decision of Roe v. Wade was to “protect” women’s rights. Just this information should be enough to overturn Roe v. Wade, but it probably is not, so the Task Force did not stop here. There is much more evidence that is just as shocking.

The task force received much more testimony showing that abortion is usually not informed or voluntary on the part of the women.

The Task Force found that many women are pressured into having an abortion by the father of the child (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 12).

This is precisely why the early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony and Abigail Adams were against the legalization of abortion. They in no way saw abortion as a woman’s right, or as a means of women being liberated. No, their view of abortion was just the opposite. They believed that legalized abortion would enslave women to men. Allowing men to use them without having to face the consequences of being responsible for a child. This is exactly what happens to a lot of women.

Furthermore, recent investigations into Planned Parenthood have found that sexual abuse, statutory rape, and even child sex trafficking are often covered up, and never reported to police. You can learn more about this and see video evidence of it at .

Here is a specific video showing that Planned Parenthood covers up child sex trafficking

I do not know how long the video will stay available. These horrific crimes are real, and they are happening right here in America! Not just in 3rd world countries! And abortion being legal facilitates them!

In addition, the task force received testimonies from almost 2,000 women who had had abortions. Most of these women told heartbreaking testimonies that they were coerced into having an abortion by the abortion provider because it was legal.  Many women also testified that they signed consent forms without being told that they were actually taking a life, but instead the abortion provider told them that it was just tissue. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 4, 20-21).

This lie that an unborn child is just tissue is very commonly purported by the abortion industry.

Kate Looby, who was the director Planned Parenthood of South Dakota, testified that at the abortion clinic in Sioux Falls South Dakota women were shown a video about the abortion procedure. This video only referred to the unborn as tissue. It gave no indication that it is a child, human being, separate patient, or even a fetus. Just tissue. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 14-16).

Saying that the unborn are just tissue degrades the unborn human being as being nothing more than a gall stone or a tumor! This is the erroneous message that women are led to believe by the abortion industry.

Women at this Planned Parenthood were not even able to see the doctor until after they gave their consent. They only talked to a counselor trained by Planned Parenthood and not licensed, and watched a misleading video. There was never a clear opportunity for the woman to ask the doctor any questions. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, Pp. 16-17).

This is not a normal doctor-patient relationship, like the Roe decision assumed would be available for women seeking an abortion.

In addition, not only will abortion providers lie through their materials and counselors that abortion does not kill a human being, they will actually refuse to answer any direct questions from the woman concerning it.

I was shocked to read the testimony of Dr. Ball, an abortion doctor with Planned Parenthood in South Dakota, who said that she would refuse to answer any questions that a pregnant woman asked concerning if abortion actually killed a human being, and when human life begins. This doctor said that those answers are subjective of personal opinion and for the woman to decide for herself. Completely hiding from the woman, the many objective scientific facts that prove the unborn are more than just mere tissue, that they are in fact separate, unique, human beings. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 17).

No one can make a truly voluntary decision on anything without having all of the facts. Abortion providers intentionally hiding the most important fact that abortion does actually kill a human being is deceptive, and violates the Constitutional rights of women, it does not protect them!

In fact, abortion has nothing to do with protecting women’s rights, it is a gross violation of those rights, and it is only about blood money!

In the Roe v. Wade decision, it was assumed that the woman’s doctor would give her all of the accurate information that she needed in order for her to make an informed and voluntary decision to have an abortion.

In light of these testimonies, this assumption of Roe v. Wade has been proven false.

Rather or not abortion actually kills a human being is the pivotal deciding force for most women seeking an abortion.

Testimonies from crises pregnancy centers showed that most women will decide not to have an abortion and will actually raise their child themselves if they know the truth that they are actually carrying a human life in them, and not just tissue. In 20 years out of 3 different crises pregnancy centers no woman ever reported that they regretted giving birth to their child. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 20).

Therefore, the assumption of Roe v. Wade that motherhood and the raising of children forced upon a woman an adversely affected future and life has been proven false.

A majority of the women who gave testimony to the task force concerning their abortion experiences deeply regret having an abortion and say that if they had been told the truth that it was a child and not just tissue, they would not have had an abortion. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 4, 20-21).

In addition, abortion is not safe for women at any stage of pregnancy. There are always very serious physical and phycological risks to a woman’s health.

Various studies have shown that there is actually a greater risk of a woman dying from an abortion, than from giving birth. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 49-50).

Therefore, this alone proves that the assumption of Roe v. Wade that abortion is safe, and that pregnancy and labor are more detrimental to a woman’s health than an abortion is false.

However, there are also many devastating phycological effects that women experience after having an abortion. Many times, these are life-long.

Abortion providers lie to women and tell them they will feel relief after their abortion. However, the task force found that most woman who have had abortions experience depression, regret, and even anger towards society and the abortion industry for their lies that abortion is a right, the unborn is not a life, no child exists, but that it is just tissue, and that abortion is safe for women. Many women also report that they were pressured into having an abortion by abortion providers simply because it was legal. These women feel that their rights were not protected, but violated, because abortion allowed others to pressure or even outright force them to murder their child, who they did not even know existed.  (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 20-21, 33).

It has been proven that having an abortion is more emotionally traumatic to a woman than giving birth to an unplanned child.

One study showed that women who had an abortion were 34% more likely to have anxiety than those who gave birth to an unplanned pregnancy. The Task Force also discovered that at least 130,000 to 260,000 women are diagnosed with serious mental health problems each year in the U.S. due to abortion. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 42).

This shows that abortion is more socially damaging to women than being an unwed mother. Therefore, the assumption of Roe v. Wade that abortion must be legal because unwed mothers face a harsh social stigma has been proven false.

Over 99% of the almost 2,000 women who gave written testimony to the Task Force concerning their abortion experiences said that abortion should be illegal because it is destructive to women (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 7).

In addition, there is really no way to calculate the damaging effects abortion has had on our society. Millions of people have been murdered, who could have contributed to our society in many different social and economic ways. There could have been better inventions, more jobs, cures for diseases, etc.

Furthermore, the cost of abortion on our medical establishment concerning women who are injured by abortion appears to be significant with over 100,000 case of serious mental health conditions being diagnosed every year because of abortion.

The task force also discovered that the pain and guilt women feel after having an abortion can lead to drug addiction. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 33).

Therefore, abortion causes our crime rate to increase, which is very costly to our legal system.

These facts show that the societal costs of abortion are staggering.

In addition, abortion causes women to have problems in personal relationships. The guilt and depression can cause her to isolate herself from family and friends, it can cause problems in her relationship with her future or current husband, and in her relationships with her later children. Many women who have had abortions are not able to bond properly with their later children, especially their first child after the abortion.

This may be because every time she looks at her new baby she feels overwhelming guilt that she killed her previous child. This very well could cause many emotional problems for these later children, and could set up destructive patterns in families for generations. This may also cause an increase in drug addictions and mental health problems, which would cost society even more.

Therefore, abortion effects a lot more people than just the woman, and the child that was killed. It deeply effects the woman’s whole family, her friends, and all of society.

Moreover, the fact that a woman suffers so much emotional pain after having an abortion shows that a woman does have an existing relationship with her unborn baby. Abortion permanently severs that relationship, at least in this life.

For abortion providers to coerce women into having an abortion and not tell them that they are carrying an existing human being violates a woman’s Constitutional right to have a relationship with her child (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 65).

Dr. Speckhard, a psychiatry professor, noted clinical studies that show that a mother starts becoming emotionally attached to her unborn child not long after conception. She also said that this relationship is further evidenced by the fact that by instinct, a woman will touch her stomach during an ultrasound, when she sees the baby. This shows that she is already emotionally attached to the baby and is trying to touch him or her (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 53).

All of this evidence proves that abortion does nothing to liberate women. It enslaves them to men, robs them of their children, harms their health, and destines them to a life of guilt and isolation.

Moreover, viability does not determine if a child is a human being or not. Saying that it is not a human being because it is fully dependent upon its mother, makes no sense, because even a newborn is fully dependent on others taking care of him. Furthermore, due to the different quality of medical care in different Countries, the age of viability is different in different Countries. A baby in the U.S. is now viable at 21 weeks, but a baby in a 3rd world Country is not. However, both babies are still human beings. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 28-29).

In addition, it does not matter what the law says or if someone believes that certain people are not human, it does not change the scientific fact that they are human beings. (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 29).

What about Cases of Rape or Incest?

As I wrote before, once the child already exists, the woman has no right to stop its live birth. In the case of rape or incest, the woman should be allowed to put the child up for adoption, if she does not want to raise the child, but she does not have the right to end its life. In these cases, the government should lawfully prosecute and execute the father!

Ezekiel 18:20 “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Furthermore, the Task Force discovered that about 97% of children born due to incest are normal.  (South Dakota, Task Force to Study Abortion, 2005, P. 32).

Moreover, our Nation was founded on the principle that all human beings are to have equal rights, that these rights come from God not government, and therefore these rights are unalienable.

The Declaration of Independence says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they

are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

The 14th Amendment says:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Just like one human being’s right to the pursuit of happiness cannot cancel out another human being’s right to liberty without due process of law, because the right to liberty is more fundamental that the right to pursue happiness;  one human being’s “right” to liberty must not be able to cancel out another human being’s right to life without due process of law, because the right to life is more fundamental than the right to liberty. That is why the right to life is always listed first, it is the most fundamental of all human rights!

For example, just like one human being cannot enslave another human being without due process of law, no matter how much it would facilitate their right to pursuit of happiness, whether it would facilitate it economically, socially, or physically, or in any other way; one human being must not be able kill another human being without due process of law, no matter how much it would facilitate their right to liberty, whether it would facilitate it economically, socially, physically, or in any other way!

The original intent of the definition of the word liberty, also needs to be reestablished as the freedom to do that which is right according to the Bible.

This is exactly what our founders believed about liberty.

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”-John Adams

“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”-Patrick Henry

“Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.”-John Adams

Rather most people want to believe it or not, this is a Christian Nation. Our founders were Christians. And they founded this Nation upon Christian, Biblical principles!

Now I know that the Declaration of Independence is no longer recognized by the courts as a legal document, which in itself is a sad tragedy. And I know that quotes by the Founders are not necessarily legally binding. However, these things do show the principles of the founders, which their intents were based upon, when they formed this new government.

These principles included that all human beings have the equal right to life, given to them by God, and therefore government cannot disallow it, for any human being.

Therefore, in order to stand by the historical traditions and principles of this Nation and its founders, the word “person” in the 14th Amendment must now be legally defined to include all human beings, including the unborn, from the time of fertilization till natural death! Because now it has been scientifically proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that an unborn child is a whole, unique, separate human being from the moment of fertilization.

For the Supreme Court to now not recognize this fact, and award these human beings the same Constitutional protections of personhood as born human beings under the 14 Amendment, would be a violation of the very core duty of the Judiciary – to protect the rights of the weakest and most vulnerable among us! And not doing so would also most certainly, now more than ever before, injure the legitimacy of the Supreme Court! An unborn baby cannot speak for himself or defend himself; therefore, that duty falls upon the government, in particular the Supreme Court!

The right to life does not come from government. Our nation was founded upon the principle that it is an unalienable right given to us by God. Some would now just call it a fundamental natural right. Either way this right does not come from government, and the government has the duty to protect that right for all human beings at all ages, and all stages of development, including all of those before birth!

Rather most people want to recognize it or not, the practice of law is more than just a mere profession. It is a sacred calling, because God is the Author of law (Genesis 2:16-17, Genesis 9:5-6, and Exodus 20:1-17), and those who practice law are entrusted with the sacred duty to protect the God-given rights of the people! All the people! Born and unborn! This is the whole duty of civil law!

How we can get Roe v. Wade overturned:

God has shown me that the first and most important thing we must do to abolish abortion is pray and pray properly.

The Bible says in 2 Corinthians 10:4 “(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)”

God has shown me that in order to end abortion, we must pray down the specific strong holds that fuel it.

 Evil Strongholds That Fuel Abortion:

Christian Apathy


Humanistic Thinking


Discontentment – Selfishness – Greed – Lawlessness – Pride


Whoredom – Pornography



In addition, God has also shown me that in order to end abortion we must experience revival to at least some degree. He has also shown me that in order to have revival at all, we must pray down the specific strong holds that are hindering it, and pray that God pours out His Spirit on all people and opens their blinded eyes so they can see the glorious light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and receive it.

The more specific a prayer is, the more powerful it is.

 Evil Strong Holds That Hinder Revival:

Christian Apathy


Humanistic Thinking


Discontentment – Selfishness – Greed – Lawlessness – Pride


Whoredom – Pornography – Sodomy – Drug and Alcohol Addictions


Abortion – Divorce – Abuse – Etc.

This is not the 1800s. This is the end days. And God has shown me that we cannot pray the same way for revival to come today, as Christians did in the 1800s.

The Devil is stronger today than ever before. We can see it. The spirit of lawlessness is taking over, and most people today have lost their consciences (2 Timothy 3:1-5).

We are the church of the Living God, and the gates of Hell cannot prevail against us. Therefore, we can turn this evil tide. But in order to do that we must attack Satan head on by praying down his specific strong holds that he is using to block us.

It’s time we stop saying we want America back, we need to just start taking it back!

The Devil has wrapped himself around our Nation like a python and is squeezing the spiritual life out of it!

We are the army of the living God! We must stop being on the defensive and go on the offensive against the Devil and take our Nation back from him!

We must declare war on Satan, and attack him, attack him, attack him, and attack him again until he loses his evil hold on our Nation and our world.

And we do this with the weapons of prayer (Praying against his specific strong holds), fasting, obedience to God’s Word, preaching and teaching the truth of the Gospel and the whole counsel of God found in His Word.

2 Corinthians 10:4 “(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)”

If God is for us, no one can stand against us, not even Satan and all his host (Romans 8:31, Matthew 16:18)!

Now, let’s go take our Country back, by praying against Satan’s specific strong holds every day!

Next, we need to get involved and take legal and political action to overturn Roe v. Wade.

There are a few different legal and political paths that we can take to end abortion:

  1. The President can sign an executive order, based on the findings of the South Dakota Abortion Task Force.

The President has the Constitutional authority and duty to write executive orders to uphold the Constitution (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sections 1 and 3).

  1. A State can amend their Constitution to outlaw abortion based on the findings of the South Dakota Abortion Task Force. It failed in South Dakota, but it should be tried in every State, and South Dakota should try again.
  2. A Personhood amendment to the U.S. Constitution can get fully passed and ratified. This would need to define a person as a human being from fertilization until natural death. This definition would cause the life of the unborn to be protected under the `14th Therefore, outlawing all abortion, while bypassing the Courts.
  3. Congress can just simply pass a law outlawing abortion. There is a bill in the House of Representatives like this right now that grants personhood to all human beings from fertilization, until natural death. This is a very good bill and needs to be passed. It is H. R. 586-Sanctity of Human Life Act. You can read the bill online at Please contact your Representative telling them to support this bill by calling the national switchboard at (202) 224-3121

Numbers 1, 3, and 4 would probably have to be upheld by the Supreme Court.

Number 2 would be exempt from the Supreme Court, but it has never passed Congress yet, and I could not find a personhood amendment in Congress right now, so one needs to be introduced.

We must work on all of these options at the same time, and keep working on them until abortion is fully outlawed. Truth, prayer, and persistence will eventually end abortion, we just cannot give up until it does!

I have written a letter to President Trump with all of the information in this document as to why he should write an executive order overturning Roe v. Wade and outlawing all abortions.

I also told him that since this information is about 12 years old, he may want to put together his own task force to study abortion, and get more up to date information on these issues. This should result in even more compelling evidence as to why abortion must now be outlawed.

The Executive order should probably state something like: “Due to the indisputable scientific proof that at the moment of fertilization, a biologically separate, unique, and whole human being comes into existence, and based upon social and testimonial evidences that abortion is physically, and psychologically injurious to the health of women, and is economically injurious to our society, Roe v. Wade is hereby overturned. Furthermore, anyone who willfully ends the life of a human being (which begins at fertilization), shall be prosecuted for murder.”

This also would effectively end euthanasia, assisted suicide, embryonic stem cell research, and infanticide. Let’s just kill all these evil birds with one stone!

Senator Ted Cruz is a really competent lawyer and has won a number of Supreme Court cases. Therefore, I have asked President Trump to consult with Senator Cruz on how the executive order should be exactly worded, and that he ask Senator Cruz if he would be willing to defend that executive order at the Supreme Court.

I am not a lawyer, and I only have paralegal training. Therefore, it is very probable that my wording above for the executive order, may not be perfectly sufficient. That is why I have asked President Trump to consult with Senator Cruz concerning the exact wording.

I am going to write my State Senator and Representative, and Governor concerning the State option 2.

And I am going to contact my U.S. Representative and Senators about options 3 and 4.

I hope that you will contact all of yours too.

We need to keep contacting them about outlawing abortion at least once a month, until it is outlawed.

When new people are elected, we start contacting them.

There is also a petition you can sign showing your support for overturning Roe v. Wade at

Short link:

The Democrats never give up, that is why they win so much.

Republicans get a little push back and fall down and quit, that is why we lose so much.

If we want to save our Country from God’s judgement, we cannot quit anymore!

Proverbs 14:34 “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.”

Please pray a daily that God will take down the strong holds fueling abortion and hindering revival. Furthermore, please take immediate action on this by signing the petition and contacting your leaders, and please share this with everyone you can.

Thank you.