In 1970, if someone in America would have told you that all the laws against abortion in all the states (but two) would be overturned and nullified by seven men on the United States Supreme Court, with no reliance on accepted principles of jurisprudence and Supreme Court precedents, you would have laughed.

Then, in 1973,  there was Roe v. Wade. In 1974, after Roe, if someone in America had said that Roe would be used as the legal justification to kill babies in their mother’s wombs up until the moment of normal birth,  and used as the justification for the barbaric procedure called “partial birth abortion,” they would have been laughed at.  If in more recent times, someone had said that the judicial legislation of Roe would be used to justify the harvesting and sale for profit of baby body parts, brains and organs – cut from living babies before they are murdered .

Pray that the following fictional account never happens. It is not laughable.


In Lo v. Dade, the Supreme Legislature had said:

“Under the unassailable Roe v. Wade jurisprudence, and this Legislature’s precedents going back to Marbury v. Madison, we find that a child’s right to abort a parent is clear from the intent of the Founding Fathers, from the shadows of the commerce clause of the Constitution, the penumbras of the Fifth Amendment, and the fringes of the Tenth Amendment. This right is so fundamental to the autonomy of each child in America, to their self identity and their personal pursuit of happiness, that we must abrogate the laws of every state contrary to this decision, including all laws that make the murder of a parent a crime when the standards of this case apply.

“A parent who violates a child’s autonomy does damage not only to the child now, but to the future of this great land. Such an injury to a child by a parent waives the parental status of person under the law. We also find that, under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the legislative branch shall have the power to enact more detailed laws than is set out here, in accord with our decision; and the executive branch shall have the power to execute such laws, as well as our decision.”

Liu Nguyen Lo was fifteen when the suit was brought in the district court in Los Angeles. She alleged that her parents dominated her life, made every important choice for her, held her prisoner in their home, caused her severe grief and mental anguish for her performance in school whenever they deemed it imperfect and impinged upon her discovery and assertion of her sexuality. Her only solution, she alleged, was to have her parents finally disposed of.

Attorneys of the Cheerful Childhood Corporation, a government-funded non-profit organization devoted to the welfare of children and their self-expression, had represented her pro bono all the way to the Supreme Court. Caregivers of Preferred Personhood America had supported her at every step of her long legal journey. When the Court’s decision was enforced, the California Caring Child Commission placed Liu with a new family with two loving fathers who were so unlike the parents who had denied her rights.

In still-pending litigation, the CCCC was representing a child who was eleven years old when the suit was filed. They were arguing that the original court decision that restricted the legal right of postperson final solution to children who were at least fourteen years old was too limited; and that this right, so fundamental to a young person, should be extended to ten to thirteen-year-olds.

“And the right of those under ten should be assertable on their behalf by state caregivers,” said an unnamed Preferred Personhood America spokesperson when asked about plans for future litigation. PPA has joined the CCCC in the pending lawsuit.

If this country does not want to witness similar scenarios in the near future, Christians must not only voice their concerns but, since we know the death dealers will never cease, take preemptive actions to stop this evil juggernaut, particularly in the legislative arena.

Our Sense of Sin

Although my fictional story might seem far-fetched, the slow move to erode the right to life in our country has been insidious. The effect on our sense of sin is similar to the allegory of the frog. If you throw a frog into a boiling pot of water, he will jump right out to save his life. However, if you put that same frog into a pot of cold water and slowly raise the temperature, he will allow himself to cook to death. It is time for Catholics to raise the alarm and jump out of this pot of boiling water of abortion and euthanasia before we literally kill ourselves.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest

3 thoughts on “PostPersons”

  1. I am old enough to remember when Roe v. Wade came down. The logical result that euthanasia would be justified on the same grounds was made and scornfully dismissed by pro-aborts. The example I remember most was the hypothetical example of a future 16-year-old who would want to be euthanized because she just didn’t want to go on, and there would be the convenient Good Death center for her to go to just as she could to the abortion center. That was in the newspaper and I wish I had kept it, but I didn’t think it would really happen. Well…

  2. Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA | Big Pulpit

  3. This is not unreasonable having lived through the Roe era. The exact form the future takes may vary, but it is true that the State will dominate human relationships and declare families obsolete. Unless God is brought back into our lives, and recognized as a superior power this will happen. The water has been boiling for a long time already.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: