On October 10, 2019, Elvis Kesto was standing outside Acacia Women’s Center, an abortion facility in Phoenix, AZ, talking to the mothers and fathers going in. As facility executioner Ronald Yunis was pulling out of the parking lot in his red Tesla, he aimed a gun straight at Kesto.
Kesto was wearing a body camera and immediately took the footage to Phoenix PD. After a week went by without law enforcement doing anything, Kesto was again at the abortion facility. When Yunis arrived to “work,” Kesto called the police asking them to come to the facility to address the issue. Officer Bobby Madeira arrived and watched the video of the incident for himself. He then entered the facility to talk to Yunis.
After speaking with Yunis, Madeira came back out to inform Kesto that nothing would be done about the matter. “An arrest will not be made today,” Madeira said. “I have to go off the evidence that I have and right now there’s not enough evidence to make an arrest.”
“What evidence would?” Kesto responded. “You saw the video. You saw he pulled a gun out, pointed at me, two witness, video witness. What other evidence would you need?”
“I saw what you saw. I saw the video that you showed me, I saw exactly what you presented to me. I can’t conclusively say that’s a gun and the other officer that you presented that video evidence to also couldn’t corroborate that that’s a gun,” Madeira said.
Video of the encounter was posted by Apologia Studios can be watched here. What Yunis aimed at Kesto could not have more clearly been a gun. It wasn’t dark, it wasn’t a partial shot of the gun that the camera captured. The grip, barrel, trigger, and trigger guard were all clearly perceivable. It’s perfectly obvious that Yunis pointed a handgun straight at Kesto. In Apologia’s video, after leaving the abortion facility, Kesto asks a number of law enforcement officers what they thought of the video without giving them the context. Every one of them agreed it was a gun.
Officer Madeira went on to explain other reasons he couldn’t make the arrest. “The witnesses that you have aren’t independent witnesses… I don’t have an independent witness… [Yunis] even told me that he doesn’t bring weapons to the facility.” As if Yunis’ brazen lies were more authoritative than the plain evidence.
Where independence is lacking in this case is on the part of Officer Madeira and Phoenix PD. For a law enforcement officer and department to deny the obvious truth that Yunis pointed a gun at Kesto is to make themselves agents of the abortion industry. After the video was published on October 18 and the subsequent public outcry, Yunis was arrested and charged within hours.
Vehicular Assault Goes Unpunished In Atlanta
A similar situation took place a few weeks later on November 5 in Atlanta. Jason Cantrell was standing in the same spot he’s stood for three years while speaking with and handing information to mothers and fathers walking in to an East Atlanta abortion facility. An employee of the facility pulled in, slowed down to get right alongside the public easement where Cantrell stood before speeding up quickly as she passed him, running over his entire right foot and knocking him down.
After watching footage of the assault, Officer Charles Houlroyd of DeKalb County PD not only did nothing about the obvious vehicular assault but gave Cantrell a criminal trespass warning. Houlroyd said that because Cantrell was on the abortion facility’s property, the driver had the right of way and was legally allowed to hit him.
During parts of the conversation with Houlroyd and another officer, Cantrell walks over to where he stood when he was hit and it can be seen from the frame of the footage that Cantrell was standing in the exact same spot as he stood when he was hit by the vehicle. If Cantrell was trespassing at the time of the assault, then he was also trespassing during his conversation with the officers. Yet the officers did nothing, betraying the fact that Cantrell was never actually trespassing.
Further, this particular abortion facility has painted property lines. Cantrell showed the officers the painted lines and exactly where he stood at the time of the assault to no avail. Not acknowledging the property lines or any evidence, “Their video shows you were on their property,” Houlroyd repeated over and over.
Cantrell said that he’s going to continue standing exactly where he stood when he got hit. “I am going to continue standing there. I wasn’t trespassing. They have lines drawn on the ground. I was on public property.”
Cantrell was wearing a body camera and posted footage of the assault as well as his interaction with Houlroyd on Facebook.
Officers Houlroyd and Madeira gaslighted victims and unashamedly flouted the law. Madeira knew it was a gun, and he knew that Kesto knew that he knew it was a gun. Officer Madeira was taunting Kesto with his dishonesty, as Officer Houlroyd was Cantrell. But Houlroyd and Madeira are not the first legal authorities to do so. In making themselves lawless agents of the abortion lobby, they’re following perfectly the example set for them by the United States Supreme Court.
The Legal Gaslighting Originates From Roe
The incoherence of the Roe decision is not a point of dispute for any serious person who knows anything about the Constitution, right or left. Edward Lazarus, a former clerk of Roe v. Wade author Harry Blackmun who “loved Blackmun like a grandfather,” said “As a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you [Roe] is basically indefensible.” Harvard Law professor and avowed leftist Laurence Tribe wrote of the decision, “Behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgement on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Former dean of Stanford Law school John Hart Ely offered the most damning indictment of Roe asserting that “[Roe v Wade] is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” According to Ely, the seven justice majority in Roe didn’t even try very hard to conceal the fact that they were flouting the Constitution. It was brazen lawlessness.
Every justice on the 1973 Supreme Court knew that the US Constitution does not acknowledge any right to murder one’s preborn child. The court knew that the entire country knew that the court knew the Constitution does not acknowledge any such “right.” But they gaslighted anyway, pretending the law says what it doesn’t (that murdering a preborn child is a protected right) and doesn’t say what it clearly does (that the right to life is unalienable). And we’re just supposed to go along with it, as if the court’s brazen lies are more authoritative than the plain evidence.
It’s time to stop being gaslighted. State governments are not bound by Roe. They’re bound by their oath to uphold the Constitution and by their transcendent, universal, immutable moral obligation to disregard orders from a superior to allow mass murder, and that’s exactly what Roe is. It’s an order from the Supreme Courts to state governments to allow mass murder in their jurisdictions. Governors must immediately order the closing of abortion facilities in their state and state legislatures must immediately pass bills of abolition to bring state murder codes into agreement with the US Constitution, principles of the Declaration of Independence, and objective moral law.
Immediate, Not Gradual Abolition of Abortion
These actions must be taken immediately because societal evils like abortion, the murder of preborn human beings by the millions, cannot be appropriately fought with compromise and incrementalism. Among many other problems with compromise on this issue, when we settle for regulations on abortion rather than abolishing it, we’re conceding Roe’s legitimacy. That’s a concession we should not be making to a court opinion that is entirely illegitimate.
Abolitionist of slavery Elizabeth Heyrick’s 1824 pamphlet Immediate, not gradual abolition is a fantastic apologia for rejecting compromise when it comes to monstrous societal evils. An excerpt:
“The enemies of slavery have hitherto ruined [the abolitionist] cause by the senseless cry of gradual emancipation. It is marvellous that the wise and the good should have suffered themselves to have been imposed upon by this wily artifice of the slave holder, for with him must the project of gradual emancipation have first originated.
“The slave holder knew very well that his prey would be secure, so long as the abolitionists could be cajoled into a demand for gradual instead of immediate abolition. He knew very well, that the contemplation of a gradual emancipation, would beget a gradual indifference to emancipation itself. He knew very well, that even the wise and the good, may, by habit and familiarity, be brought to endure and tolerate almost any thing…
“He knew very well, that the faithful delineation of the horrors of West Indian slavery, would produce such a general insurrection of sympathetic and indignant feeling; such abhorrence of the oppressor, such compassion for the oppressed, as must soon have been fatal to the whole system… Our example might have spread from kingdom to kingdom, from continent to continent, and the slave trade, and slavery, might by this time, have been abolished all the world over: ‘A sacrifice of a sweet savour,’ might have ascended to the Great Parent of the Universe, ‘His kingdom might have come, and his will (thus far) have been done on earth, as it is in Heaven.’
“But this GRADUAL ABOLITION, has been the grand marplot of human virtue and happiness; the very masterpiece of satanic policy. By converting the cry for immediate, into gradual emancipation, the prince of slave holders, ‘transformed himself, with astonishing dexterity, into an angel of light,’ and thereby ‘deceived the very elect.’ He saw very clearly, that if public justice and humanity, especially, if Christian justice and humanity, could be brought to demand only a gradual extermination of the enormities of the slave system; if they could be brought to acquiesce, but for one year, or for one month, in the slavery of our African brother, in robbing him of all the rights of humanity, and degrading him to a level with the brutes; that then, they could imperceptibly be brought to acquiesce in all this for an unlimited duration….”
The flow of innocent blood and the legal gaslighting which causes it must end. Governors and state legislators must abolish abortion immediately. Six states have introduced legislation to establish immediate justice for preborn human beings: Oklahoma, Indiana, Texas, Alaska, Idaho, and Washington. Rather than appeasing and working within the legal gaslighting to try to get small compromises, these bills adequately address Roe for what it is.
The only alternative is for our state legislators and executives to continue nullifying their obligations to God and Constitution by obeying the Supreme Court’s arbitrary, tyrannical, and bloody whim; to continue making themselves like every other mass murder enabler of history, proclaiming with those on trial in Nuremberg, “We’re just following orders.”