Life Matters Brian Johnston

Who has choice? It’s not women! It was only doctors who were authorized to kill, to decide when to kill and what procedures to use. Yes, in Roe v. Wade choice was given only to doctors.
In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston explorers the confusion that many individuals have regarding what happened onJanuary 22, 1973. The Roe v. Wade decision is actually quite direct and explicit. There is no right of a woman to a woman’s own body. Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, was not giving women the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and especially with a very difficult medical procedure like human abortion.
Blackmun was explicit in both Roe, and in particular in Doe v. Bolton - only doctors would be authorized to kill. Specifically, they were to be free to decide when, where, how and for what reason, even for no reason in particular, to perform a human abortion.
They were the ones given a choice. 
Later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, attempting to teach feminists that they still had not achieve their goal, underscored that Roe and Doe did not give women the right to choose. It only gave them a right to ask. All authority of the medical decision was to be made by a medical doctor, the now killer, the abortionist. 
Brian reminds listeners that because of human psychology, and, in particular, the phenomenon known as attachment theory, human beings are emotionally supportive of young creatures, particularly young mammals. The wide eyes, mewling and ‘baby sounds’ bring an innate adult reaction. That would include human babies, but for some people canine babies – puppies are even more emotionally attractive! 
But the crime of abortion is not that cute babies are killed and that OUR emotions are stretched by that action. The crime is that this is a human being has been killed. 
That is the most startling culture change that ever hit our society.  Doctors were now to kill their fellow human beings and explicitly to ignore the Hippocratic Oath.  Western medicine was now destroyed. 
The most trustworthy and honored profession in society has become the most evil and diabolical profession. Doctors, regardless of their personality, are under tremendous financial, sociological and cultural pressure to endorse, and when put upon, to end the lives of their fellow human beings.  The foundation that Western Civilization was built on - protection of innocent lives - was now terminated.  
The physician was now transformed to a paid killer.  
A cursory look at the current practice of medicine reminds us that there are bizarre ideas and values, and sociological confusion, allowing doctors to say and do things that are explicitly harmful to their patients, but that was not the case before January 22, 1973. 
In every state, the laws of that state regarding killing or harming were reflected by the ethos and guidelines of the medical profession, and the medical regulations, the laws, of the various states fell in line with that. Before Roe v. Wade doctors didn’t kill babies because doctors didn’t kill anyone. 
 
The Oath
We must restore the Hippocratic Oath. We must focus on what the crime is, who the perpetrators are.   If we make the mistake of focusing only on the victims, on how old they are, when they die, on what situations (rape, incest, difficult social circumstances) if that becomes the action of the pro-life movement, we have lost our way . We must restore the Hippocratic Oath to the medical profession. The laws of Georgia in 1973 were actually very good and reasonable and did allow doctors to determine if there were unusual circumstances, because a panel of three different doctors experienced in childbirth determine if this was indeed a problem pregnancy.  They could exercise their medical judgment, and the state could still hold them responsible. That law of Georgia, which was overturned in Doe v. Bolton, was ironically one of the best state laws that protected human beings b

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston discusses the actual nature of how a republic works. It works by representing the people through elected representation. These representatives exist at every level of government and through diversified jurisdictions .
Brian interviews Scott Peotter, a long-time pro-life advocate who has served in local jurisdictions and has enforced just laws on the most local levels, including city council.
In July 2023, Gavin Newsom attempted, in his role of governor, to force the Temecula school board to promote LGBTQ doctrines and accept Planned Parenthood abortion mandates in that district. The school board, by a very narrow margin, insisted that they are held accountable and will be accountable for the assets of that particular school district and that the governor was functioning as a dictatorial autocrat.
The school board prevailed.
It is critical to understand, if you care about the direction of our country, that we are a nation and a government that is, “of the people, by the people, and for the people” in the words of Abraham Lincoln, America’s first Republican President.  
If you desire for your nation, state, county or community to embrace good values in the civic realm, you absolutely must be aware, and then be involved in your local community.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian interviews Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. They discuss in depth the recent failure of California Senate Bill 1196 by Senator Blakespear.
The irony is that the bill was not defeated by pro-life efforts. The bill was actually attacked by other pro-death organizations, lobbyist and legislators. Why would other pro-death advocates attack this measure?
The prospects of passage in the California legislature are very good - the progressive Democratic Party holds a super majority in both houses. The governor would’ve gladly signed off, as he himself has been supportive and wrote of participating in the intentional killing of his own mother before it was even legalized in California.
SB 1196, would no longer allow a need for terminal diagnosis, would make provision to kill those who are not a sound mind, and would remove most qualifying limitations on assisted suicide.  The reason the bill was stopped is they knew it would likely pass, and that passage would send alarm bells to an otherwise sleeping public. 
Assisted suicide is going on in California medical facilities. Assisted suicide is, in fact, the intentional killing of a depressed person. It is happening now and as the death lobby knows, because of media coverage or perhaps lack of coverage, most Californians have no idea California doctors are killing patients.  
Brian and Alex point out that ‘choice’ whether it be in abortion or in euthanasia, does not actually refer to the patient.  It is a medical decision and it is the choice of the doctor to do the abortion, it is the choice of the doctor to perform euthanasia. So when the term ‘choice’ is applied to these procedures, it doesn’t mean protecting a patient. It means protecting the choice of a killing doctor, a doctor who is blatantly defying the oath that made the medical perfection respected. That Hippocratic oath is now gone. 

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston explains the importance of not being religious in our attempts to change the laws to protect innocent human life.
Johnston reminds us that America’s founders were themselves deeply religious individuals, but they understood that many of them had disagreements within their own theologies - differences in doctrine. The answer to this difficult challenge was actually found in the formation of other republics throughout history.
A republic asserts that there is more than simple voting and majoritarianism in making law.   Votes must be according to higher laws. The founders referred to this existence of a higher law, a natural law premise, self-evident and ‘revealed in nature’, when they spoke of creating a more just government and founded on the principals of the laws of nature and nature’s God. 
It is essential for earnest pro-lifers, now that the various states are free to create new laws regarding abortion, that these pro-life advocates not be merely religious or doctrinaire advocates, but instead realize that they must build our laws on self-evident truth and be able to work within the principles of natural law and the methods of conducting a republic’s business through parliamentary procedure and debate. 
This necessitates setting aside our personal theology, working towards those higher laws, those common goods, and most importantly, being willing to compromise in order to get as much as we possibly can within the political process.
Johnston explains how the current debate regarding appropriate abortion measures requires an understanding of natural law theory and practice, “the laws of nature and nature’s God” as the founders outlined it, and the ability and humility to compromise in order to accomplish goals.

In this episode of Life Matters, Brian Johnston explores the rapid expansion of medical killing - euthanasia. The pattern for euthanasia advocates is to first establish a right to “assisted suicide” - a form of voluntary euthanasia – and imply that there will be protections from any abuse, and that there will be no expansion of medical killing.
California Senate Bill 1169 by Senator Blakespear demonstrates again that once the idea of legalized medical killing is established, it is impossible to monitor or prevent its “It’s okay” expansion. 
Currently, it is very difficult to monitor the use of assisted suicide in California facilities. The government is dependent on the honesty of those reporting the actions and there is no penalty for failure to fill out a report. 
That being said, the new bill removes the idea that there be a six month prognosis of death. That language is changed to “a grievous and irremediable medical condition.” In other words, there need not be any terminal condition! 
Secondly, the new bill allows those with dementia to consent to assisted suicide, even though they have a condition that impairs their capacity to consent! The measure will now allow the use of intravenous administration of poison.  Under current law, the person takes an oral dose of the poison at the time and place of their own choosing with or without witnesses. 
The new bill removes any need for a residency requirement. If you live in a state where your doctor is concerned that your depression and emotions are causing you to desire suicide, you can simply travel to California, where the new doctor will kill you without any further questions being asked.
There is no requirement now, nor will there be, of psychological testing of the individuals to be killed. The 48-hour waiting period is removed.  If you ask to die today, you will be killed the same day. The original California Assisted Suicide Law was scheduled to sunset by 2031. Most laws have a sunset in order to assess their efficacy. Now, medical killing - euthanasia - will be the law of the land for perpetuity.  
Don’t believe that euthanasia advocates want to limit euthanasia. They want to be free to dispose of any individuals whom they see fit for disposal. That’s how medical killing works. That’s how it worked under national socialism. That’s how it worked under international socialism. That’s how it works wherever the Hippocratic Oath is removed from society.

In this episode of Life Matters, Commissioner Johnston examines the February 2024 decision of the Alabama Supreme Court regarding in vitro fertilization.
The issue of in vitro fertilization (IVF) is not a new debate, but sadly, media coverage has over simplified and reduced a deeper analysis. The issue of manipulating human beings and playing God by creating, and then destroying human lives, has grave and dramatic implications for all of society, many of which are being ignored.
First and foremost is the issue of human ownership. There is no debate that these are human embryos. Yes, they can be preserved by cryogenic freezing,  But they are indeed human and as the movie, “Jurassic Park” intimates, via IVF, there are implications to the use of science to both create, and then possibly destroy the life created. In that film, the issue revolved around using science to create dinosaurs, using cryogenic freezing of the embryos. But also shows the implications of the creation and theft of such cryogenic “property”.
President Trump was clear that it is a practice that should have parameters and limits. He endorses its use only for childless couples who are unable to conceive, not for routinely 'creating human lives.'
The issue of creating living property, “playing God,” is only the beginning. The idea of owning another human being is obviously at the heart of IVF issues when it comes to human reproduction. And the issue of owning a human being is clearly at the heart of both slavery and abortion.  Western Civilization has recognized that it is unethical to claim ownership of another human being, much less destroy a human being you claim to own. 
Brian continues the discussion by examining the work of the Swedish Council on Bioethics. In vitro fertilization is being practiced in Sweden, but there are grave implications which are impacting that culture. The Swedish culture is considered liberal and progressive, but the dire implications of owning and creating new human lives are only beginning to be understood. The Swedish Council on Bioethics is asking for a re-examination and some reasonable limitations to be put on this ‘practice of medicine.’