The film was shot in secret and some teaser video will be shown at a pro-life rally in Washington this weekend.

A new pro-life film, Roe v. Wade, was shot in secret because filmmakers worried about backlash from pro-choice activists. The project, currently in postproduction, is now unveiling a three-minute teaser that is set to debut at the March for Life 2019 event this weekend in Washington, D.C.

The teaser opens with a scene featuring Oscar-winning actor Jon Voight, who plays U.S. Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger in the film, then cuts to modern-day news reports about Justice Brett Kavanaugh, including speculation that his appointment by President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court will "flip" the Roe v. Wade decision from the 1970s that basically legalized abortion.

Nick Loeb, who produced, co-wrote and co-directed Roe v. Wade, says the comparisons between what is being said now about Kavanaugh and was said when Roe v. Wade was re-argued in the early 1970s after a few President Richard Nixon appointees were on the court are strikingly familiar.

"Everyone is saying Kavanaugh is going to flip the decision and the same thing was said in 1972. There's actually a lot of parallels between then and now," Loeb told The Hollywood Reporter.

READ MORE:

First Look at 'Roe v. Wade' Film Featuring Jon Voight as a Supreme Court Justice

Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

First of all, Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion. 


Contrary to popular perception, the majority opinion in Roe did not affirm a constitutional right to privacy, much less a right to have an abortion.


Roe and all subsequent abortion cases have established a culture where the Supreme Court, rather than the legislature, dictates the content of abortion legislation, often in painstaking detail. Though Roe itself had little regard for the text of the Constitution and effectively ignored a century of prior jurisprudence, Roe’s defenders have solemnly appealed to the principle of stare decisis to preserve Roe as an established precedent. Revolutionaries despise traditional authority until they gain power, at which point authority again becomes sacred. Since the legal arguments of Roe are virtually nonexistent, it can only be defended by the argument from authority, stare decisis, a principle which Roe itself thoroughly repudiated.

"The most controversial of the civil rights cases is undoubtedly Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which has been applied in a way that effectively establishes an unwritten constitutional right to have an abortion, though the opinion of Roe itself made no such assertion directly. Roe represents a twofold failure of judicial social engineering, since it (1) applied a uniform legal solution over all the states on a highly contentious issue that opens deep moral, religious, and philosophical fissures, and (2) was poorly reasoned and not grounded in law, giving it little intellectual legitimacy. We are only going to consider the second aspect of Roe, its failing as a legal argument.Roe’s intellectual inadequacies are well known and criticized among legal scholars, even those who personally favor a right to abortion.[1] These criticisms have not reached a larger audience, however, due to the superficial coverage of legal matters by the mass media. Accordingly, we need to clear some common misconceptions before examining the opinion of Roe itself, which is often cited but seldom read."

READ MORE


As subsequent history has proven, the Court did not settle the abortion issue, but nationalized it, creating militant opposition groups with national reach. The Court, by legislating from the bench one time too many, itself became an object of competing political ideologies. Instead of debating abortion in state legislatures, the battle is waged through judicial appointments, and as Roe cannot stand on the basis of its weak arguments alone, the abortion issue will be held hostage by the courts until the pre-Warren understanding of the role of the judiciary holds sway once again.

THIS ALABAMA JUDGE HAS FIGURED OUT HOW TO DISMANTLE ROE v. WADE

His writings fuel the biggest threat to abortion rights in a generation.

READ MORE

GOSNELL shocker

Patriot Post

A colleague of Karman's Philadelphia collaborator described the contraption as 'basically plastic razors that were formed into a ball.... They were coated into a gel, so that they would remain closed. These would be inserted into the woman's uterus. And after several hours of body temperature, ... the gel would melt and these ... things would spring open, supposedly cutting up the fetus.' Nine of the 15 Chicago women suffered serious complications. One of them needed a hysterectomy. The following year, the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. It would be 37 more years before the Philadelphia doctor who carried out the Mother's Day Massacre would go out of business. His name is Kermit Gosnell. Back-alley abortions were indisputably a problem before 1973. That's no defense of the Roe regime, which failed to solve it."

--Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto

Jimmy Carter: "I never have believed that Jesus Christ would approve of abortions..."

“...and that was one of the problems I had when I was president, having to uphold Roe v. Wade."

 Audio: It’s time for Democrats to moderate on abortion, says … Jimmy Carter...

Survivors

I am a survivor, too:

My first home at the Children's Home Society in Los Angeles, 1940's.

Ginsburg: I thought Roe was to rid undesirables

Justice discusses 'growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 08, 2009
9:46 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

In an astonishing admission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."

Her remarks, set to be published in the New York Times Magazine this Sunday but viewable online now, came in an in-depth interview with Emily Bazelon titled, "The Place of Women on the Court."

Read more

[Exactly WHO are these "undesirables" she speaks of???]

If Babies Had Feathers We Would Not Kill Them

...our laws are so intent on protecting the eagle that simply injuring, molesting or destroying an eagle egg could cost you a serious criminal penalty, civil fines, and a year in the slammer...The esteem in which we hold unborn baby eagles is remarkable. The protection which the law affords them is noble and inspiring. If only unborn human babies had feathers…perhaps we would not kill them.

Read the whole thing