And after work, you of course took a shower. These were all lies. Instead of being set free by work, untold numbers of Jews during Hitler's reign were gassed in rooms that were dubbed "showers," where Hitler's "final solution" was carried out. The distorted use of these words were employed to legitimize a sinful act, in this case, mass murder.

Roe v. Wade
A similar degeneration of meaning is being witnessed in America today. It began most noticeably a generation ago. For instance, with one fell swoop, to legitimize the sinful act of feticide, the meaning of fetal life was trivialized, then obliterated in the Supreme Court's decision in 1973 of Roe v. Wade. In the court's opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun stated that fetal life was really not a consideration vis-a-vis whether it should be allowed to be terminated by abortion. He reasoned:

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Therefore, life does not count at the fetal stage because of the specious reasoning that when life begins has been debated. Of course, life is he absence of death. We know what a dead fetus is, and so does the body, and spontaneously aborts it. A live fetus is, of course, not a dead fetus and to kill a live fetus is taking life. But the political agenda prevailing at our highest court is to find a way to allow women to abort their own children without legal penalty. To do this, as a court, you define away life and make it unimportant and state that the compelling issue is a pregnant woman's right--rather than what she is pregnant with. Justice Blackmun said that:

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman...

To put a mantel of authority over it all, as a court you invent new meanings and rights for the constitution. For instance, you invent the right of privacy when it comes to taking fetal life. You admit, as a court justice, that the right of privacy does not exist in the constitution, then say that it is there, however, implicitly. Blackmun reasoned:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however... the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution...

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

This is an astounding line of reasoning. In other words, the so-called right of privacy sanctions the self-termination of a pregnancy because the justices have claimed that science and religion have not determined precisely when human life begins. Pregnancy has now become an empty term. It does not mean emergent human life, but simply another part of a woman's body that she can amputate at will, equivalent to elective surgery. The question of an independent life has been taken out of the equation. It would be like a defense lawyer saying that his client can not be convicted of murder, because the man he stabbed was already dead. The pregnant mother who takes the life of her fetus has been shielded from blame by the Supreme Court, saying that the life of the fetus is merely a "theory."

But the fetus is not dead. It is life, itself. It is surpassingly unreasonable to accept that this life is only a "theory" if it takes a surgeon's knife to terminate its human development.

Linda Greenhouse reported in the New York Times on March 5, 1999, that Justice Blackmun regarded Roe v. Wade "as a landmark in the progress of the emancipation of women."

This "emancipation," which supposedly will set you free, is the right to abort, which also frees female (and male) life, prior to birth, of life itself.

When meaning is conferred by court decisions, and not by the people themselves, nor God, the result is the twisting of language for the purpose of tyranny.

In a brief submitted February 1994 by Mother Teresa in an unsuccessful U.S. Supreme Court appeal of the case of Alexander Loce v. New Jersey, she said that:

America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign.

Since that attempt to redefine life and women's rights was made by the Supreme Court, we, as a nation, have watched while over 40 million abortions have been performed, equivalent to bringing down well over 13,000 Twin Towers full of human life. We have declared a war of terror on ourselves of unprecedented proportions. We are witnessing the transformation of America by a federal judicial oligarchy that has usurped state control, and so for, is beyond democratic control.

The Laci-Conner bill
Efforts to correct this distortion of meaning have been heatedly opposed, such as criticism by abortion rights lawmakers of the recently passed fetus protection bill. As reported by the Associated Press, the Senate voted March 26, 2004 to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.

The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush for his signature. The White House said in a statement that it "strongly supports protection for unborn children."

However, abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights.

The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which it says "means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

Supporters of the bill have named it after Laci Peterson and her unborn child, Conner, victims in the highly publicized murder case in California. California, one of 29 states with an unborn victims law, is trying Peterson's husband, Scott, on double murder charges.

"This bill recognizes that there are two victims," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Americans, he said, "intuitively know that there is a victim besides the mother."

But Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said that by defining when life begins, the bill was "the first step in removing a woman's right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability." She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

"This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman," said Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League. "Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade."

In this case, Congress is correctly defining what an unborn child is, namely, "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb." Making the decision to end that life in the womb is a choice to commit a sin.

Americans' use of the phrase "right to choice" to justify abortion is the same as the Germans' use of "final solution." It is a euphemism for taking life. And the term "viability," meaning life, from the Latin "vita," is used here in a distorted way, as though the phrase "pregnancy before viability" meant "pregnancy before life." "Viable" when it concerns a fetus, means "sufficiently developed to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus." Under normal conditions, when this stage of a pregnancy is reached, birth occurs. Pregnancy is, by definition, the condition of human life when it is dependent on the uterus for life. Removing it by force is stopping its viability.

Partial-birth abortion
In a similar manner, challenges based on faulty language have been made to the recently passed ban on partial-birth abortion. The Associated Press reported October 22, 2003, how both sides of the abortion issue define the importance of the legislation.

President George Bush said in a statement that, "This is very important legislation that will end an abhorrent practice and continue to build a culture of life in America." However, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., lead opponent of the legislation, said, "This is indeed a historic day, because for the first time in history Congress is banning a medical procedure that is considered medically necessary by physicians." She added, "I see what this is about ... this is about politics. I never dreamed I'd be down here with senators who think they know more than doctors."

Former Democratic Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who is also a doctor, echoed these latter statements, saying, "As a physician, I am outraged that the Senate has decided it is qualified to practice medicine." He said the legislation "will endanger the lives of countless women."

Saying that partial-abortion is medically necessary and that banning it will endanger the lives of women are examples of further distorted speech. According to testimony by Dr. Pamela Smith, Director of Medical Education in the Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital, before the U.S. Senate on Nov. 17, 1995, "There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered fetus to be destroyed to preserve the life or health of the mother."

Further, Dr. Kathi A. Aultman testified before Congress on the partial birth abortion bill that, "Partial-birth abortion is a legal term that covers a set of circumstances that culminate in the physician intentionally killing the fetus after it has been partially born," that "partial-birth abortion has blurred the line between abortion and infanticide," and that, "This bill will not endanger women's health."

Dr. Aultman is a board certified obstetrician gynecologist, a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and a member of the American Medical Association. She testified July 9, 2002, before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, regarding H.R.4965, the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002."

Most importantly, Sec. 1531 of H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, allows a partial-birth abortion to save a mother's life. It states:

Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. This paragraph shall not apply to a partial-birth abortion that is necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury: Provided, That no other medical procedure would suffice for that purpose.

Same-sex "marriage"
Just as abortion has been permitted through the manipulation of language, the meaning of marriage is being redefined by our society to mean the union of two same-sex partners. This is being done in an attempt to give the mantel of legitimacy to a sinful act, homosexuality.

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated excluding same-sex couples from the state's marriage laws. It held that the exclusion violated the due process and equal protection provisions of the state's constitution because no rational relationship existed between the prohibition of same-sex marriages and the state's proffered justifications: procreation, child development, and fiscal economy.

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others."

In the majority opinion Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall said that the Department of Health, against whom a suit was filed by several same-sex partners:

...argues that broadening civil marriage to include same-sex couples will trivialize or destroy the institution of marriage as it has historically been fashioned. Certainly our decision today marks a significant change in the definition of marriage as it has been inherited from the common law, and understood by many societies for centuries. But it does not disturb the fundamental value of marriage in our society.

In a concurring opinion Justice John M. Greaney stated that:

A comment is in order with respect to the insistence of some that marriage is, as a matter of definition, the legal union of a man and a woman. To define the institution of marriage by the characteristics of those to whom it always has been accessible, in order to justify the exclusion of those to whom it never has been accessible, is conclusory and bypasses the core question we are asked to decide. This case calls for a higher level of legal analysis...

I do not doubt the sincerity of deeply held moral or religious beliefs that make inconceivable to some the notion that any change in the common-law definition of what constitutes a legal civil marriage is now, or ever would be, warranted. But, as matter of constitutional law, neither the mantra of tradition, nor individual conviction, can justify the perpetuation of a hierarchy in which couples of the same sex and their families are deemed less worthy of social and legal recognition than couples of the opposite sex and their families.

Justice Marshall summed up the court's position:

While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage.

However, as one dissenting opinion pointed out:

The court has it backward. Civil marriage is the product of society's critical need to manage procreation as the inevitable consequence of intercourse between members of the opposite sex. Procreation has always been at the root of marriage and the reasons for its existence as a social institution. Its structure, one man and one woman committed for life, reflects society's judgment as how optimally to manage procreation and the resultant child rearing. The court, in attempting to divorce procreation from marriage, transforms the form of the structure into its purpose. In doing so, it turns history on its head.

According to the 1991 Random House Webster's College Dictionary, "marriage" is "the social institution under which a man and a woman live as husband and wife by legal or religious commitments."

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has cut from the pages of the dictionary the words "man and woman" and "husband and wife" that since time began described marriage and substituted, instead, "commitment of...partners." It is what your are committed to, not one's sexual difference, that makes marriage.

And this is courting insanity. There is no reason to stop at same sex unions. Logically, with this line of thinking, what is to stop marriage from including a toaster or a pig?

Another dissenting opinion stated:

The same semantic sleight of hand could transform every other restriction on marriage into an infringement of a right of fundamental importance. For example, if one assumes that a group of mature, consenting, committed adults can form a "marriage," the prohibition on polygamy, ...infringes on their "right" to "marry." In legal analysis as in mathematics, it is fundamentally erroneous to assume the truth of the very thing that is to be proved.

As Justice Greaney observed in his concurring opinion: "this case takes a higher level of legal analysis." Indeed, one that is sadly absent from the court's decision.

Euthanasia
Another perversion of the language is seen with regard to euthanasia. According to the Oregon Department of Human Services, in 1997 physician-assisted suicide became "a legal medical option for terminally ill Oregonians." Called the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, it was a citizens' initiative, passed by Oregon voters. It allows terminally ill Oregon residents to obtain from their physicians' prescriptions for self-administered, lethal medications.

According to the DHS:

The Act states that ending one's life in accordance with the law does not constitute suicide. However, we have used the term "physician-assisted suicide" rather than "Death with Dignity" to describe the provisions of this law because physician-assisted suicide is the term used by the public, and by the medical literature, to describe ending life through the voluntary self-administration of lethal medications, expressly prescribed by a physician for that purpose. The Death with Dignity Act legalizes physician-assisted suicide, but specifically prohibits euthanasia, where a physician or other person directly administers a medication to end another's life.

In another semantic slight of hand, the act states that nothing in the act:

...shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with [the act] shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.

Turning history on its head
So there you have it. Under Oregon law, it is not suicide or assisted suicide, but in the literature provided by the Oregon Department of Humans Services, which governs the law, it is, indeed, a "legal medical option" that "legalizes physician-assisted suicide."

The courts have trivialized life and turned its meaning inside out. Feticide is amputation and marriage is merely a partnership. Those who hold traditional values are charged with opposing physicians who supposedly have the right to determine who lives or dies. And even voters have approved legal language that states that suicide is not suicide.

Indeed, history is being turned on its head. And it is being done systematically by the turning of meaning upside down.

Reprints available for $1 a copy. Write to l.i.f.e.letter at our address. Also available for printout on the web at http://www.ideaone.net/~jahorsley.