The 33rd Annual March for Life in Retrospect and Prospect
Marching on Washington in protest for a just cause has been a glorious tradition. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dedicated co-soldier Coretta Scott King, who recently passed on, marched on Washington. There have been Million Man and Million More marches.
But only one march has continued for 33 years now, the annual “March for Life,” which commemorates the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in 1973 legalizing abortion in the United States, known as Roe vs. Wade. Interestingly enough, Ms. “Roe” herself, whose real name is Norma McCorvey, no longer supports abortion “rights.”
Dr. King in his book "Strength to Love" spoke of how Christianity helped end the horrible infanticide of the Roman Empire in the first century. Today that tradition holds, as perhaps millions of pro-life, mostly conservative Christians and likeminded individuals marched and protested for the unborn all across the nation during the weekend of January 22.
I have marched for this noble cause twice. Both times I was disturbed by the fact that African Americans were very low in attendance. When abortion has caused 13 million African American deaths since 1973, more than heart disease, cancer, and A.I.D.S. combined (only about 4 million), you have to wonder why more African Americans do not participate in such a just cause.
The recent battles over the Supreme Court nominations of Roberts and Alito centered on what they would do with Roe if appointed. But the strange hypocrisy of the confirmation process was two-fold.
First, many on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said that the President should not apply a “litmus test” for nominees. Yet it seemed fine when a pro-choice President nominated a pro-choice Ginsburg, but there was a problem when a pro-life, conservative Bush Jr. nominated possibly pro-life, conservative justices. This is a double standard.
Second, while many at the confirmation hearings decry a “litmus test” on abortion (i.e. no “pro-lifers”), some of the more liberal members were themselves applying a “litmus test,” which was essentially, “If you would possibly vote to overturn Roe, no matter how otherwise qualified, you should not be on the Court.”
But if Roe is indeed bad law, as many objective lawyers have argued, then why must it be preserved like some untouchable “sacred cow”? If the Dred Scott Decision, which labeled the African race as “inferior” and “property” without rights, had been allowed to stand despite the fact that it was ridiculous law, where would we be today? We need justices on the High Court who can think critically and recognize bad law.
We lost Dr. King to assassination. We lost Coretta to natural causes. What a shame it would have been to have lost either of these true heroes before they were ever born.
For more information on this topic visit www.blackgenocide.org and www.GospelAnswers1.com. All who wish to contact me regarding my work should use the critique section or email me through my website: www.GospelAnswers1.com.
Read more articles by Arthur Daniels Jr. or search for articles on the same topic or others.