(Television news announcer) The Supreme Court staggered the nation today when they ruled that conception begins the minute you think about sex.

The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions.

At the moment of conception.

The Supreme Court appears poised to overturn 50 years of constitutional protections for women to access to safe and legal abortions. This decision is catastrophic and will have consequences that will negatively impact generations

This is probably as bad a day as the court has had on social issues since .

Even with this abbreviated sketch of the process of fertilization, one thing is obvious. When biologists object to statements about life beginning at conception, they are not splitting hairs or being pedantic. There is no time in the sequence we’ve just described where new life is created. In fact, from the point of view of the biologist, at conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing.

It has been previously shown that in the two elements, the ovum of the female, and the spermatozoon of the male, are, in rudimentary form, all the elements which go to make up the “human form divine.” Alone, neither of these elements can become anything more than it already is; but the instant that the two elements come in contact, fecundation takes place, and the individual life begins. From that moment until maturity is reached, years subsequently, the whole process is only one of development. Nothing absolutely new is added at any subsequent moment. In view of these facts, it is evident that at the very instant of conception the embryonic human being possesses all the right to life it ever can possess. It is just as much an individual, a distinct human being, possessed of soul and body, as it ever is, though in a very immature form. That conception may take place during the reproductive act cannot be denied. If, then, means are employed with a view to prevent conception immediately after the accomplishment of the act, or at any subsequent time, if successful, it would be by destroying the delicate product of the conception which had already occurred, and which, as before observed, is as truly a distinct individual as it can ever become-certainly as independent as at any time previous to birth. It is immoral to take human life? Is it a sin to kill a child? Is it a crime to strangle an infant at birth? Is it a murderous act to destroy a half-formed human being in its mother’s womb? Who will date to answer “No,” to one of these questions? Then, who can refuse to assent to the plain truth that it is equally a murder to deprive of the life of the most recent product of the generative act ? Who can number the myriads of murders that have been perpetrated at this early period of existence ? Who can estimate the load of guilt that weighs upon some human souls ? and who knows how many brilliant lights have been thus early extinguished ? how many promising human plantlets thus ruthlessly destroyed in the very act of germinating ? Is it to be hoped that in the final account the extenuating influence of ignorance may weigh heavily in the scale of justice against the damning testimony of those “unconsidered murders.”

There is a reason that "roe v. wade" is the number one search on google today — American’s are waking up in disbelief and trying to understand how #SCOTUS is planning to eviscerate access to safe and legal abortion

The idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child, based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think goes way overboard

In 1973, the Court in the Roe v. Wade decision gave the individual the right to destroy the unborn through abortion, and three years later in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth it extended the supremacy of individual privacy over parental authority in the child's abortion decision. In his seminal article on the Court's role in shaping a national family policy, scholar Peter J. Riga suggests that in Danforth, "marriage is seen as a tenuous union formed by the consensual agreement of the two individuals who remain autonomous and independent throughout the relationship." He further asserts that by the end of the 1970s, the Court had, for all practical purposes, obliterated the difference between marriage and non-marriage, replacing the sacred covental view of marriage with the "positivistic view that a marriage is but an act of the state, which powers the state may delegate in appropriate cricumstances." In other cases, the abuses of the judicial doctrines of "in loco parentis" and "parens patriae," particularly in such areas as education, discipline of children, and child custody, have fostered subversion of the role of the parent in favor of ultimate decisions on family and children matters by the state and federal governments.

Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized. They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans. But they did it. And it’s a sad day for the Court and for the country.

Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception,

Iowa, you have shocked the nation.