Overturning The "Human Right" Of Sacrificing Babies To Moloch

Sacrificing Babies To Moloch

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I’m sure you’ve seen the recent news about Roe v. Wade:

Supreme Court Has Decided to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Leaked Opinion Suggests
A newly published majority draft opinion penned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito suggests the nation’s top court has decided to strike down Roe v. Wade, the seminal precedent that in 1973 wrested the regulation of abortion from the states and made the procedure lawful throughout the entire United States.
The 67-page opinion, along with a 31-page appendix, was published on May 2 by Politico.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito states in the document.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes in the document, which is labeled as “the opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Once this passes, states may determine their own laws regarding sacrificing babies to Moloch. This is contrary to forcibly demanding that all states follow the Roe v. Wade requirements.

This is a decent victory, but still will only allow some leeway for certain red states to block it. The change is not a “ban” on abortion, as it just passes the decision back to the states. Where it should have been in the first place given our republic structure.

This change isn’t even an ideal. Ideally, we’d have our own nations, and our dissident-nation could outright ban abortion. That’d be a major victory. But I’ll take what I can get at this point.

It gives the pro-life groups a lot more wiggle room for activism at least.

Many people, mostly politicians, are arguing that the leak is damaging to the “sacred institution” of the Supreme Court and the “trust within it”. I don’t care about any of these things, nor do I think that the SC is some kind of holy organization. It’s just as corrupt as every one of our other institutions, so it’s no surprise there was a leak and it would be no surprise to me if this ruling was coincidentally timed to coincide with our November elections.

But my focus in this article isn’t so much on this change, but on the lies and evil that allowed Roe v. Wade originally.

Norma McCorvey, or “Roe” (in the court case), lied about being raped during the case:

The woman whose challenge to a state law virtually prohibiting abortion led to the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision now says she lied when she declared upon bringing suit that it was rape that had caused her pregnancy.
Ms. McCorvey told Mr. Rowan that she had fabricated her account of being raped by three men and a woman in 1969 because she had hoped to circumvent a 100-year-old Texas law that banned abortions except when the woman’s life was in danger. ‘What I Thought Was Love’
Ms. McCorvey said that she had actually become pregnant ”through what I thought was love” and that she decided to challenge the state law when her doctor told her that she could not legally have an abortion in Texas.

Imagine hating your own children so much that you are willing to both lie about being raped and then challenge the entire state to give you the ability to slaughter your own progeny. This, after you already gave up for adoption two other prior pregnancies.

But it gets worse. Norma ended up having the third child during the ongoing case and immediately tossed her into adoption, as well. She then refused to reconcile or even genuinely try to see her own child until it became money-related:

Daughter of ‘Jane Roe,’ the woman behind the landmark abortion case, comes to terms with her identity
Thornton’s identity has been unknown to the public for more than 50 years. She was first named as McCorvey’s daughter last month in an article published in The Atlantic.
[…]
Nineteen years earlier, McCorvey, then 22 and unmarried, was pregnant and having already given up two babies decided she didn’t want to have a third. At that time, the legality of abortion was based on state’s decisions, and McCorvey was in Texas, where it was illegal.
She went on to become the plaintiff, going by the pseudonym “Jane Roe,” in the case that made abortion a federally protected right.
[…]
‘She didn’t deserve to meet me’
McCorvey died in 2017, and her own opinion on abortion — if it was ever truly black and white — went to the grave with her.
She became publicly known shortly after the Supreme Court decision and became part of the abortion rights activist movement in the 1980s, making appearances and announcing she wanted to find the child she’d placed for adoption.
But in the 1990s, McCorvey joined activists on the anti-abortion side.
That was thought to be her opinion — until the documentary “AKA Jane Roe” was released in 2020 including a late-life interview where she said she wasn’t actually against abortion. She claimed she had been paid by the anti-abortion movement to say she was.
“I think she was taken advantage of by both sides, but I think she also took advantage of both sides,” Thornton told ABC News.
[…]
She never agreed to meet her biological mother in person and has “no regrets” about that, not just because of how they were introduced, but also because of comments McCorvey had made to the press about alternatively feeling guilty for placing her for adoption and wishing she’d gotten the abortion.”
She didn’t deserve to meet me,” Thornton said. “She never did anything in her life to get that privilege back. She never expressed genuine feeling for me or genuine remorse for doing the things that she did, saying the things that she did over and over and over again. She wasn’t sorry, about giving me away or anything.”
Thornton has never forgiven McCorvey and has no plans to do so, “mostly because I feel that she could have handled things a lot better,” including by being “upfront” about wanting to meet her for the media attention.
“I can deal with that. I can’t deal with lies and treachery and things like that. To me, that’s like no, sorry, not playing that game with you. And that’s all it was. It was a game. It was a game. I was just a pawn, and I wasn’t going to let her do it,” she said.

Norma lived a life full of nothing but evil until the very end. Switching sides to whichever benefitted her after hoeing around for years and giving up each child while desperately trying to kill them all.

I feel for Thornton. Imagine being the child of this woman. Your mother so desperately tried to slaughter you in the womb that she was willing to lie about being raped and take the issue to the Supreme Court to do so. I don’t blame her for not feeling bad about not meeting her. Because even if she had, all she’d be doing was inviting pure evil into her life.

Roe v. Wade will always interest me, because it was one of the first SC cases back in my normie years where I realized the SC is just as moronic as the other two branches of government. It helped lift the veil of ignorance from me. The entire ruling made no sense, and it is insane that it took five decades to figure that out.

It’s arguably the most obvious case of bench legislation, which is a massive evil plaguing our land. It’s also completely moronic, with them invoking “privacy” for reasons you can kill someone. Read the majority opinion here if you haven’t before. It’s worth a laugh or a cry, depending on your perspective.

But, whatever. It’s getting overturned now. Take the V when we get it.

Still, I can’t help but wonder why they decide to release this verdict now, a few months before the election, at the start of summer. It’s almost like they want planned riots and to make the election about abortion to detract from the other stupid things the centralizers are doing.

I wouldn’t put it past them.

Whatever the reason, I’m glad it’s in the works. It’s a step in the right direction.

It never hurts to make the hoes mad: