Weather Forecast


High Court ignores children again

In 1973, the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade ignored the consequences of its decision to give women the right to privacy when it came to their continuing a pregnancy. Forty years later it still boggles the mind how they could not see how that decision would end the lives of millions of children (60 million so far).

Maybe they could foresee the slaughter of innocent children and "spoke" anyway. How can they sleep nights knowing what a tragedy for America they began?

Perhaps the four justices who dissented on the two decisions on unnatural marriage handed down recently did so at least partly because they knew the long range effects on 97 percent of the children in our country. One reason abortion has remained a "law" for so long is that it has been taught in our schools for 40 years as something legal and, if legal, it must be "OK."

This is likely to happen in those 12 states, including ours, with unnatural marriage. It will be taught that it is legal and so "OK" and perhaps even as "natural" and "normal" for 3 percent of the population.

What effect will this have on the other 97 percent of the children? Shock. Confusion. Fear. The 6-year-old girl who asked her mother after the November referendum failed "Does this mean I will have to marry a woman?" is evidence of the dream smashing consequences of the justices’ 5-4 decision.

Another devastating result that will impact all children is raised by the question of an 11-year-old at the hearings before the vote on the bill legalizing unnatural marriage: "Which parent don't I need: my father or my mother?"

Perhaps we should think twice about conceiving children in a state or culture that doesn't understand the unique contributions of a mother and a father on raising children. Or in a state or culture that does not understand the importance of the development of a good sense of one's gender.

What does the Declaration of Independence mean by "self-evident truths"?

Ron Stehr

Red Wing