Law and Order's Hit Job

Although not all the characters in a recent episode of Law And Order had a one-sided attitude towards the subject of abortion, the writers did not truly strive for balance on a recent episode. They have handled the subject previously with much greater fairness. This attack evidently was precipitated by the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. Of course, that decision did not make abortion illegal; it left it up to the states to formulate their own policy concerning the matter.

This television program is obviously incensed that states are free to choose to legislate against abortion or not. In fact, at the outset, they let it be known that they did not appreciate the remarks about New York that a governor from another state had made. Maybe they should look at themselves to see why it is that New Yorkers are virtually fleeing to Florida and other states. It could be the taxes; it could be the crime; or maybe it's the state's promotion of abortion and their lack of respect for life. Most people would not even consider moving to New York; only California is worse.

This episode targets overtly the governor of Texas, who has been in favor of sending illegal immigrants to cities like New York—the rationale being that, if they are in favor of sanctuary cities, then the illegals should be sent to those cities. (According to the internet, New York has a pro-sanctuary law.) Texas laws also favor pro-life thinking. Unless a woman's life is threatened, abortions are illegal.

The actual governor of Texas is wheelchair bound due to an accident; however, he continues to be quite popular and effective. His wife is Hispanic and has been a principal in various Catholic high schools. They have one adopted daughter, who is grown. The family has two dogs—Pancake and Peaches.

In Law and Order's fictional governor's household, the first couple has a son, a daughter, and her boyfriend. They are all hypocrites. Briefly, the story is this. The daughter went to New York City, ostensibly to tour a college she was interested in attending. She is attacked and killed in broad daylight, having been pushed off a bridge in a park onto concrete below. One witness saw the push; another saw the same white male, wearing a baseball cap, running away.

Of course, not everything is as it seems. The young woman who was killed is the daughter of the fictional governor of Texas. And she had not really come to New York to check out a college; she had come to the city to obtain an abortion. Why didn't she talk the situation over with her parents? Why did she hide it from them? She had undoubtedly been raised pro-life by her fictional parents. How could she even consider having an abortion, when it went against the beliefs of her entire family—and then trying to hide it from them, to boot—as though no one would ever find out.

Later, we find out her "reasoning." She said something to the effect, "I'm just starting my college career. Being a mother would just tie me down." Her boyfriend is no more noble than she is. He states, "I'm not ready to be a father yet." Apparently, the audience is not supposed to say, "What a pair of selfish adolescents! They wanted certain pleasures that are reserved for a husband and wife, but now they don't want to face the consequences of their actions. And we're supposed to sympathize with them?" Not once in the entire program was the word adoption mentioned.

Oh, but it gets worse. The writers decided that the murderer would be her own brother, which makes no sense at all, for the simple reason that pro-life people do not take the lives of others. What was his motive? He was mad at her. The mother had discovered what her daughter was really going to New York for and had sent her brother to talk her out of it, but he arrived too late. He called her names, such as slut, and when he found out she had already killed her child, he shoved her over the bridge. If this doesn't sound like any pro-life family you know of, there's probably a good reason for that. The writers probably don't know any Texas pro-lifers.

So, how could the story get any worse? The heroine of the tale was one of the eyewitnesses of the murder. She was not a native New Yorker. No, she was from Texas and had accompanied the woman to get her to the abortion clinic. Yes, she's a hero because she gets young women from Texas away from the parents to New York in order to kill their children legally! Yes, she could be arrested for what she does, but she's willing to do it—so that another baby can die. She's willing to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune for the cause! Pardon the lack of applause. Is this who young people are suppose to look up to as a hero and a role model—someone who subverts the rights of parents, as well as the law, and helps terminate the life of an innocent human being?

This preposterous drama contains little, if any, connection to reality. It was contrived to express the feelings of the writers. The is the way that immoral people fight back—by savaging good and decent folks in an effort to get them down to their own level. No argument in favor of abortion was offered; no new information was proposed. In fact, no defense of it was given at all except what the two whiny youths said about not being "ready" to be parents.

The fact is that stopping the heartbeat of an innocent child in the womb is murder. It was all through the reign of Roe v. Wade, and it still is. God still calls the life in the womb a child (Luke 1:41, 44); this fact will not change so long as the world stands. Many people have come to understand this truth—but not a few outspoken entertainment media zealots.