Cafeteria Catholics

No special effects: A straight shot of Catholicism

Roe v. Wade Beyond the Surface.

By Efrain Cortes

Fellow Catholics, since 1973 there has been much written and articulated concerning the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. From the pro-life side to the pro-death side, the battle of arguments rages on.

Yet in the midst of the debate, it appears that focus upon the truth has somehow been blurred.

Now there is absolutely no doubt, the bitter reality in the abortion holocaust is the fact that millions upon millions of the unborn have been murdered outright. And as loyal Catholics we are compelled to stand squarely against such an injustice.

However, at ‘AGAINST ALL HERESIES’ we have grown accustomed to going a bit deeper than that which lies visibly upon the surface. For here, is where the whys are uncovered, the hidden is made known, and the truth is laid bare.

It is with this thought in mind, therefore, that the reader is invited to dig a bit deeper in the matter of Roe v. Wade. For it is in doing so that we shall arrive at what is real, actual, and shockingly true.

In order that we might arrive at our desired aim, however, it is of paramount importance that a bright light be shone upon the veiled element of the Roe v. Wade decision.

For there exists an aspect of the controversial matter that has gone virtually untouched by secular media outlets. Yet as loyal Catholics, we are obliged to get down and dirty and lay our hands all over the discriminatory facet of Roe v. Wade.

So if we are prepared to dig and go deep beyond the surface so as to expose the evil core in the case of Roe v. Wade, then let us roll up our sleeves fellow Catholics and begin our thorough excavation on the matter.

Let’s have some fun:

In 1856 the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford stated:

"...That unfortunate race...had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order..."

Thus, it was judicially decided that the rights afforded American citizens could not be constitutionally afforded to unwhite persons in this country - namely, the right to be free.

The United States Supreme Court effectively affirmed the legality of white ownership over the unwhite.

Discrimination became the law of the land.

The erroneous 7-2 decision, however, would prove to be one of the biggest judicial blunders the high court had ever rendered (up until that point). In fact, historians often cite the decision as one of the dominant factors leading up to that gruesome bloodbath, the American Civil War.

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court would once more, and not for the first time since, fall into the mire as a result of its blundering way when in the 7-2 decision of Roe v. Wade, it stated:

"[T]he unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

In other words, as it had done in the case of the unwhite, the highest court in the land judicially reduced unborn persons to nothing more than "beings of an inferior order." And as beings of an inferior order, the unborn could not be constitutionally afforded the same rights as citizens of this country - namely, the right to life.

Just as the Supreme Court had declared a century before that a certain class of persons - the unwhite were to be regarded as the property of another (the white), in like fashion, the Supreme Court once again declared that a certain class of persons - the unborn, were to be regarded as the property of another (the mother).

Although it can be properly stated that Roe (unlike Dred), did not lead the country into civil war, the controversial decision has resulted in a far greater bloodbath on America's soil.

For according to National Right to Life, since the contentious decision was handed down, the blood of an estimated "48,589,993" persons has been brutally shed in this country as opposed to the bloodshed of the 498,332 persons that followed the unspeakable Dred Scott decision.

In spite of such horrendous parallels, however, those who hold fast to the 1973 ruling most ardently argue there is no medical or scientific consensus as to the beginning of human life.

Therefore, the court's landmark decision could in no way be considered discriminatory. For if the unborn are truly "not persons in the whole sense," then against whom did the court discriminate in 1973? And on the surface, such an argument appears almost valid.

When measured up against documented scientific fact, however, such illogical musings are quickly exposed for what they truly are:

Wicked attempts at dehumanization.

For the medical and scientific community have long recognized that human life (personhood) begins at conception. In fact, medical and scientific textbooks are riddled with testimonial evidence regarding this incontrovertible fact.

For example, five years prior to the Supreme Court ruling we find Human Embryology, 3rd ed. (1968), stated:

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resulting mingling of nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of fertilization [conception] and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual"

Moreover, the court's decision did little to dissuade medical science from its conclusion on the matter. For one year after the court's detestable judicial precedence had been set, Biological Principles and Modern Practices of Obstetrics (1974) stated:

"The Zygote [result of the union of the ovum and spermatozoan] thus formed, represents the beginning of a new life."

In 1975, we find that Pathology of the fetus and the infant, 3rd ed. unequivocally stated:

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

In fact, as far back as the 1850's, the same time period in which the highest court in the land declared the unwhite to be "beings of an inferior order," according to Willke:

"The scientific and medical world came to fully accept the fact that man and woman each contributed half to the creation of a new human being. This event was called conception or fertilization."

Medical science has remained virtually undivided on this scientific fact. Therefore, it is inaccurate and highly deceptive to say there is no consensus as to when human life begins. For those truly qualified, have long-ago unearthed the answer to this critical question.

It is in light of such scientific evidence, that the discriminatory similarities between Dred and Roe become simply undeniable. Let us examine the uncanny resemblance:

Unwhites are non-persons - the unborn are non-persons. Unwhites are the property of the owner (the white) - the unborn are the property of the owner (the mother). Whites can choose to buy, sell, or kill the unwhite - the mother can choose to keep or kill the unborn. Slavery is legal - abortion is legal.

Make no mistake about it fellow Catholics, discrimination against a certain class of persons is once more the law of the land. In 1856, it was those of a different color against whom discrimination had been “legally“ leveled, while today, it has been “legally” leveled against those of a different place of residence - the womb.

Those who uphold Roe as unimpeachable law, must come to terms with the fact that lawyers, as the Dred Scott decision painfully denotes, are not infallible.

For if a set of seven lawyers could fallaciously declare Dred Scott a living, breathing person, who as evidence of that fact stood directly before them to be a "nonperson," then it stands to reason that a set of seven lawyers, not trained in the medical or scientific fields, could certainly declare an unseen person in the womb to be no person at all.

Do we see the connection?

Then the Roe-discrimination entwinement having been established, it is time to get down to the heart of the matter.

For the discrimination nexus in the case of Roe v. Wade, is much more profound and serves a much more sinister purpose than this.

Prepare to go beyond the surface fellow Catholics.

Now, as with the abortion issue, there is also a smoked-screened aspect surrounding the slavery matter which is rarely, if ever, presented by secular media institutions. And that is, the reproductive aspect of the lamentable event.

For while it is true that the Dred Scott decision condemned the unwhite to a lifetime of forced labor, Unwhite females were doubly condemned. For not only were unwhite females to be the victims of forced manual labor, but they were also to be the victims of forced-controlled breeding.

In other words, once the Dred Scott decision had effectively reduced unwhite persons to the mere property of another, it then became financially beneficial for the owner of such "property" to acquire as much of that "property" as humanly possible?

The way in which the owner of such property would manage to obtain an abundance of such a stock then, was quite simple:

Forced-controlled breeding.

Plainly stated, slavery, was regarded as a lucrative business. And there were those willing to pay top dollar for a strong, fit unwhite slave.

Therefore, owners of the unwhite were selective as to which unwhite males in their "stock" to breed with their unwhite females. In other words fellow Catholics, slave owners were breeding human thoroughbreds.

Now, what does this sadistic, demoralizing practice have to do with the case of Roe v. Wade we might ask.

Discrimination, fellow Catholics - wicked discrimination. For it is the type of discrimination spawned out of the evil of eugenics.

Now, what exactly is eugenics?

Well, the World Book Dictionary defines the word eugenics as:

"The science of improving the human race. Eugenics would apply the same principles of careful selection of parents that have long been applied to animals...[to] theoretically develop healthier...and better children."

This, is precisely the practice slave owners were engaged in during the 1800's fellow Catholics:


More to the point, it is also the practice adopted by none other than Adolph Hitler during the Second World War.

Hitler, however, inverted the practice, turning it into the unimaginable.

For while slave-owner eugenics called for the multiplication (breeding) of the "inferior order," Hitler's refashioned brand of eugenic-discrimination called for an interruption of such multiplication, and ultimately, the annihilation of such an "order."

It is perhaps, the Fuhrer himself who provides us with the most succinct elucidation concerning this altered form of eugenic-discrimination.

Hitler Stated:

"Whoever is not physically or mentally fit, must not pass on his defects to his children. The state must take care that only the fit produce children."

It is this demented eugenic ideal that is largely to blame for the mass murder of thousands of Hitler's own countrymen. For according to the San Francisco Chronicle:

"...In 1940, thousands of Germans taken from old age homes, mental institutions and other custodial facilities were systematically gassed. Between 50,000 and 100,000 were eventually killed."

Of course, the staggering body count of Gypsies and Jews Hitler's brand of eugenic-discrimination left sprawled throughout the pages of history, serves as a vivid reminder as to the evil of the devilish practice.

Now, what does all of this madness have to do with Roe v. Wade?

Well read on fellow Catholics:

Long before Hitler had put his eugenic-discrimination into brutal action, American eugenicists such as Madison Grant, had long been advocating their own fiendish formulae of eugenic-discrimination.

According to Orthodoxy Today (2005), in his 1916 book, The passing of the Great Race, Grant wrote:

"Indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes, often result in serious injury to the race..."

Notice the similarity in rhetoric between Grant and the leader of the Third Reich.

Grant further stated:

"Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and sentimental belief in the sanctity of life, tend to prevent the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community."

Again, let the similitude in eugenic speech be noted fellow Catholics. For there is a troublesome reason for the like-minded eugenic verbiage between Adolph Hitler and Madison Grant.

That is, that Hitler highly admired and was deeply influenced by Madison Grant. In fact, according to the Chronicle and various other print sources, in a personal letter to Grant, Adolph Hitler stated:

"Your book is my Bible."

Far more harrowing than this, however, is the little known fact that in the Roe v. Wade decision Justice Harry Blackmun, as a basis for the high court‘s ruling, cited eugenicist upon eugenicist of the radical class, such as Nazi-admired, Madison Grant.

Were we aware of that fellow Catholics?

For example, Justice Harry Blackmun, in delivering the opinion, cited Glanville Williams' book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law.

Now Williams, according to orthodoxy Today, "was a fellow of The British Eugenics Society." An organization that in 1954, voted to end restrictions on abortion in Britain.

Moreover, in 1956, Williams was a visiting professor of law at Columbia University where he served as consultant to the Model Penal Code Project.

Funded by John D. Rockefeller 3rd, The Model Penal Code Project, according to Orthodoxy, "allowed for eugenic abortion to kill disabled babies. It also allowed the killing of healthy babies if they were conceived [through] incest or rape."

Sound familiar?

Williams additionally served as Britain’s "president of the Abortion Law Reform Association and vice president of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society."

In his book, cited by Justice Blackmun, eugenicist Glanville Williams stated:

"We now have a large body of evidence that, since industrialization, the upper stratum of society fails to replace itself, while the population as a whole is increased by excess births among the lower classes."

The rhetoric is striking, is it not?

Williams further argued that it is not immoral for a mother who has given "birth to a monster or idiot baby to kill it just as a bitch would kill her misshapen puppies."

These are the savage extremities to which eugenic-discrimination callously extends fellow Catholics.

The court's alarming dependence upon radical eugenicists such as Williams in presenting its case, however, does not stop there - not by a long shot. For the court also relied quite heavily upon the book, Abortion, by Lawrence Lader.

In fact, Lader’s book is cited seven times by Justice Blackmun at footnotes 9, 21, 26, 33, 44, 57, and 58. Nowhere in the Roe opinion is a single source of "law" cited as often.

Based on the court's dominant lean upon Lader's work then, we must presume the high court must have been aware that within the pages of the book, Lader expressed the highest gratitude to seven members of the American Eugenics Society.

One such member just so happened to be Alan Guttmacher, president of Planned Parenthood at the time. as well as five other prominent, radical eugenicists.

As an extra-added side note, according to the Catholic League:

“American Eugenics Society members assisted Hitler in crafting the 1933 German sterilization laws.”

Returning to Mr. Lader, however, Lawrence Lader served on the board of directors at the Association for Humane Abortion, based in New York. The organization’s founder’s had been known for “invoking the Fourteenth Amendment as a possible basis for legalizing abortion,” according to Orthodoxy.

In the book, cited by Justice Blackmun, Lader stated:

"No government...can resolve a population crisis without combining legalized abortion with a permanent, intensive contraception campaign."

Ironically enough, the same eugenic rhetoric appears to have been espoused by Justice Blackmun himself. Who prior to delivering the controversial Supreme Court decision, stated:

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

(Emphasis added).

Such clear-cut eugenic rhetoric is equally comparable to that of Planned Parenthood foundress, Margaret Sanger, who according to The Life Education and Resource Network, argued for birth control using the "scientifically verified" threat of:

"[overpopulation, sickness, Poverty, and racial tension] as its background."

In most recent years Sanger has been further "identified as a member of the American Eugenics Society by the organization's 1956 records,” according to Orthodoxy.

Yet Supreme Court Justice Blackmun, appears to have been harmoniously in line with the radical eugenicist, who in her book, The Pivot of Civilization, additionally stated:

"The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately."

Curiously, in the case of Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun also cited the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell which upheld involuntary-sterilization laws in the United States.

Incidentally, it was the American Eugenics Society that lobbied for the legislative success of such laws, which according to the Chronicle, were ultimately responsible for "…an estimated 63,000 lives."

One additional camouflaged fact concerning the Buck v. Bell case, is that prior to Roe v. Wade the case had also been "cited by Nazis as a defense in the Nuremberg trials."

Now in what possible way could the Bell case serve as a defense for murderous Nazis, we might ask. Well fellow Catholics, it was in the case of Bell, that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, from the bench of the United States Supreme Court, infamously stated:

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind...Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

These shocking words speak for themselves.

For one could understandably misconstrue the Bell opinion as having been penned by the Fuhrer himself.

Indeed, long before eugenic-discrimination had been brought to gruesome realization in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, it appears its slithery tentacles had reached the judicial chambers of the United States Supreme Court!

In fact, according to the Chronicle, Hitler himself once stated:

"I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Is it coming into focus fellow Catholics?

Well in that case, back to Justice Blackmun and the Roe decision:

As additional authority, Justice Blackmun cited Cyril Means. Mr. Means served as an attorney for the Association for the Study of Abortion, which channeled a portion of money to Means, that he might write “a favorable abortion history,” according to Orthodoxy.

Board members of this particular organization, not surprisingly, were known members of the American Eugenics Society as well.

Nevertheless, Means’ Abortion History was cited by Justice Blackmun six times in the Roe decision at footnotes 21, 22, 33, 42, and 47.

Justice Blackmun further cited the American Public Health Association. An organization with a long history of promoting eugenic theory.

In fact, according to Orthodoxy, in March of 1934, the organization published an article in which it applauded "Germany's sterilization program which had gone into effect in January of that year."

In October of 1972, just months prior to the Roe decision, the APHA's journal, in an effort to give its eugenic agenda a fresh spin, carried an article explicitly "tying legalized abortion with population control and preservation of the environment."

The article stated:

"It would appear that legalization of abortion is probably the single most effective practical measure that can be taken to lower the birth rate, and by doing so, preserve the environment from further deterioration."

As we know all too well fellow Catholics, this same environmental spin is spewed to this very day by certain factions of the pro-death element.

Furthermore, Justice Blackmun cited the successful effort of England’s Abortion Law Reform Association to end restrictions on abortion. Justice Blackmun stated:

“Recently Parliament enacted a new abortion law. This is the Abortion Act of 1967.”

The Abortion Law Reform Association consisted of twenty-seven members of the British Eugenic Society,” according to Orthodoxy.

Justice Blackmun further cited cases such as, Abele v. Marklemun. Wherein a Connecticut federal district court overturned abortion restrictions relying heavily upon articles written by, eugenicist Cyril Means (discussed above).

The Connecticut court stated:

“Unimpeachable studies have indicated the importance of slowing or halting population growth…In short, population growth must be restricted, not enhanced and thus the state interest in pro-natalist statutes…are limited."

Poe v. Mengheni. Wherein a Kansas federal district court ruled:

“Procreation is certainly no longer a legitimate or compelling state interest in these days of burgeoning populations."

Doe v. Scott. Wherein an Illinois court found no interest in upholding a statute:

“Which forces the birth of every fetus no matter how defective or how intensely unwanted."

In other words, Justice Blackmun cited cases thoroughly laced with eugenic-discrimination.

Moreover, Justice Blackmun cited the book, The Biological Time Bomb, in which the author, Gordon Rattray Taylor, cited eugenicist Kingsley Davis (among others) who in a 1967 article stated:

"Induced one of the surest means of controlling reproduction..."

We could go on fellow Catholics, but is there really any need?

This is what Roe v. Wade is all about at its core fellow Catholics.

It is about the most wicked form of discrimination - eugenic-discrimination.

It is about the form of discrimination that allows for the forced sterilization of those deemed “unfit” by men in black robes.

It is about the form of discrimination in which mad men, such as Hitler, have found justification for wiping out entire generations.

It is about the form of discrimination by which proud and haughty men measure the sacred value of the unborn person.

In short fellow Catholics, it is about the form of discrimination by which the godless become gods unto themselves.

Or did we really believe it was about a woman’s right to choose?

Were we beginning to seriously ponder the ridiculous notion that preservation of the environment and “population growth” could only be remedied through the outright murder of the innocent?

Surely not.

On the upcoming anniversary of this most horrid stain upon our country, let us not forget why we labor, let us not forget why we pray fellow Catholics, and let us not forget why we march.

God bless fellow Catholics.

"All children born beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish..."
(Eugenicist, Robert Thomas Malthus).

“Birth control and abortion are turning out to be great eugenic advances of our time.”
(Eugenicist, Frederick Osborn).

"Birth control which has been criticized as negative and destructive, is really the greatest and most truly eugenic program.
(Eugenicist, Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization).

"While we were pussy-footing around...the Germans were calling a spade a spade."
(Eugenicist, Leon Whitney, executive secretary of the American Eugenics Society).

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population.
(Eugenicist, Margaret Sanger. Written response to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of Procter and Gamble).