Leviticus 20:2, “Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones.”

Jeremiah 32:35, “They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.”

Offering one’s child as a sacrifice in the name of idolatry was considered sinful, profaning the name of God, and worthy of the death penalty.

Why? Because the killing of children is a direct assault on the image and person of God. As humanity is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27, 5:1-2; James 3:9), any abuse of that image is regarded as a personal attack on God Himself (Genesis 9:6). The acceptance of such a practice in a culture is the direct result of the evolutionizing of that culture and the rejection of Genesis and the Bible as historical and authoritative.

The attack on God’s image includes children, for see how beautifully and reverently the Scriptures describe human life:

“¹³ For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. ¹⁴ I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. ¹⁵My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; ¹⁶Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.” (Psalm 139:13-16)

These profound statements about life are ALL while the child is still in the womb! And yet, over four decades ago the Supreme Court of the United States decided to bring our nation into compliance with Molech worship – the sacrificing of children through abortion in the name of choice (idolatry), convenience (idolatry), and career (also idolatry). Those three C’s all place something, namely the individual, above God and serve oneself instead of the Creator.

However, this was not always the case in America.

When the thirteen states won their independence from Great Britain, they applied English common law in regards to abortion. James Wilson, a Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention, stated in his 1790 Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of the law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence”.¹

The importance of this viewpoint by one of the framers of the Constitution is vital to our current legal system for two reasons.

1.) Under the laws of the United States, human life should be protected, even while still in the mother’s womb! Some opponents claim that Wilson’s statement says life doesn’t begin until around 15 to 20 weeks, which therefore makes the decision of when life begins arbitrary and a matter of opinion. That is a perversion of Wilson’s statements. In his day, the soonest a mother knew for sure she was pregnant was when she could feel the baby move. What Wilson was therefore saying is that as soon as we know a lady is pregnant, that life is protected by law. Today, through modern technology we can know even sooner as our ability to detect and protect life is only increasing.

2.) As a framer of the Constitution, Wilson’s statements reverberate through the American legal system as he declares the right to life, even while in the womb, is Constitutionally protected based on common law. The Constitution of the United States established a federal system of government in which the common and state laws of the land are maintained to the point they do not conflict with federal law (Article VI of the Constitution). Does that mean the federal government can change those common and state laws and decide when life begins and is protected? NO! The 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution specifically declare that those decisions are to be left to the people and their state governments. But even if a state decided to legalize abortion, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution declares in Section 1, “…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Therefore, the only legal means by which an abortion can be carried out is if the baby has committed a crime worthy of the state’s death penalty and was found guilty in a jury trial (the baby’s 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendment rights).

This is important because of the gross abuse of power and disregard of the Constitution by the Supreme Court in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

In 1821, Connecticut became the first state with a statute criminalizing abortion. Throughout the 1820s, more states either codified or expanded English common law to protect the lives of the unborn. By 1900, every state in the US had abortion legislation.

In 1973, only 4 states (New York, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii) had legalized abortion upon request.

The Supreme Court, however, changed everything.

In June of 1969, Norma McCorvey found that she was pregnant with her third child. Upon the urging of her “friends”, she attempted to obtain a legal abortion by falsely claiming she had been raped. When she could not produce a police report supporting her claim, she attempted to obtain an illegal abortion. This failed as the facility to which she had planned to go was shut down by police.

McCorvey eventually gave birth to a beautiful baby girl who was then adopted. However, while she was still pregnant, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington believed they had the perfect subject for a lawsuit. In 1970, they filed suit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of their client, alias Jane Roe. Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade represented the State of Texas in the case.

On June 17th, the three-judge panel unanimously declared Texas’s abortion laws unconstitutional. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court as was another case, Doe v. Bolton, in which Georgia’s abortion laws were challenged.

In both cases, the women being represented (Norma McCorvey in Roe and Sandra Cano in Doe) were lied to and deceived by their lawyers. In an affidavit filed on June 11, 2003, McCorvey stated, “For their part, my lawyers lied to me about the nature of abortion. Weddington convinced me, ‘It’s just a piece of tissue. You just missed your period.’”² She also claimed that she signed the initial affidavit without reading it and “was never invited into court. I never testified. I was never present before any court on any level, and I was never at any hearing on my case…I found out about the decision from the newspaper, just like the rest of the country.”³

On January 22, 1973 the court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of Roe and Doe, declaring that the States cannot prohibit later terminations of pregnancy when the life or health of a woman is in danger. However, the meaning of a mother’s “health” has very wide parameters. As stated in Doe, “We agree…that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.”⁴

Therefore, according to the court, if a mother feels she will have emotional issues from the pregnancy, she is legally allowed to have the baby killed while in her womb. Is there any way our nation can be pardoned for such wickedness?

“Roam to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and look now and take note, and seek in her open squares. If you can find a man, if there is one who does justice, who seeks truth, then I will pardon her.” ~ Jeremiah 5:1