nizing the protective environment ofnintact homes; and protecting childrennfrom abuse by government-paid therapistsnand social workers.nThe state, in truth, always has anninterest in disrupting and displacing thenfamily. The “child abuse crisis” merelynrepresents another splendid opportunitynfor this sort of mischief If the farcenof the McMartin trial can be seennas the logical consequence of statismnrun amok, some good may yet comenfrom it.n—Allan CarlsonnTHE ABORTION QUESTIONnseems to have reached an unfortunatenstandoff. Just as the federal judiciarynhas seen fit to allow more scope fornpro-life legislation, it would appear thatnpublic opinion, registered in the electionnreturns (as interpreted), has turnednagainst the pro-life position. If it is truenthat Americans are more pro-abortionnnow than they were before Roe v.nWade, then among other things thisnindicates how a corrupt governmentncorrupts its people.nI have a modest proposal to help anyngovernor or state legislator out of thenticklish position they are in as a result ofnhaving a controversial issue thrownnback in their laps. I offer it freely. WerenI governor of a sovereign state, I wouldndo what I should have done all along. Inwould declare that Roe v. Wade was annillegal, unconstitutional, usurpative,nand nonbinding decision. Therefore,nthe laws of my state in regard tonabortion are still in force as written andnMOVING?nLET US KNOW BEFORE YOU GO!nTo assure uninterrupted delivery ofnChronicles, please notify us in advance.nSend change of address onnthis form wdth the mailing label fromnyour latest issue of Chronicles to:nSubscription Department, Chronicles,nP.O. Box 800, Mount Morris, lUinoisn61054.nNamenAddressnCitynState JZip.n8/CHRONICLESnon the books of 1973. There is nonneed for new legislation, unless thenpeople, through their representatives,nchoose.nThe only problem with this is thatnsome states — I do not know hownmany — have doubtless changed theirnlaws since 1973 to conform to Roe v.nWade. This in itself shows how far wenhave fallen from any proper conceptionsnof democracy, constitutional government,nand the high and sovereignnlawmaking power. States, on this andnother questions, tamely pass the lawsnthey are told by unelected authoritiesnto pass, which is not lawmaking at allnand not constitutional government, butnpretty similar to what happens in thenSupreme Soviet.nMy own opinion is that the publicnhesitancy before endorsement of annunequivocal pro-life position does notnreflect an approval of or a preferencenfor abortion as a moral position ornsocial policy. What it reflects is ansuspicion of government. The “prochoice”nposition that no one has anynbusiness interfering with a woman’snprivate decision in regard to her body isnintellectually and morally nonsense.nThe community clearly has an interestnin life, which is why we have lawsnagainst prostitution and murder andnwhy we permit the government tonconscript men to die for the country.nBut, in my opinion, the peoplenrecognize that the state apparatus, especiallynthe federal government, is notnthe community but is an alien, selfinterestednforce. Therefore, they arenquite reasonably suspicious of that authoritynthrusting itself into the mostnintimate private affairs. The mainnproblem of our age is the overweeningnstate, an even greater problem than thenmoral decay represented by “prochoice.”nAs outrageous as it will doubtlessnseem to our global democrats to say so,nthe American constitutional systemnwas primarily a creation of ProtestantnChristianity. Neither the liberal minoritynnor the Catholic minority can governnon this question. The only viablensolution to the abortion issue will be anreturn to tradition. That means, first ofnall, state rights. Secondly, that meansnthat public policy will generally comendown to a position which says: abortionnis a moral evil that shall not be allowednexcept under extraordinary circum­nnnstances— rape, incest, to save the lifenof the mother.nI realize that this position is notnmorally perfect and will not satisfy mynpro-life friends. But I do not know ofnany law that is morally perfect. Thenpurpose of law is to govern the dailynaffairs of men in as close an approximationnof a moral order as we can managenin a flawed world.n— Clyde WilsonnTHE DEPT. OF EDUCATION,nin its seemingly endless quest to discovernnew ways for students and teachersnto waste their time, has approved anhigh-school course on the holocaust.nCentered around a 400-page textbookncalled “Facing History and Ourselves,”nthe course is a semester-long exercisenin intellectual and psychological nosepicking,nan extended submersion intonirrationalism and a tool deliberatelyndesigned to inculcate guilt in the callownminds of the young.nWritten by Margot Stern Strom andnWilliam S. Parsons of the Facing Historynand Ourselves Foundation innBrookline, Massachusetts, the textbooknexplores both the Nazi destruction ofnthe European Jews and the Turkishnmassacres of Armenians in World WarnI. But the textbook, accompanied bynoutside readings and audio-visual aids,nis not just another history lesson. Itnseems to downplay the acquisition ofnhistorical knowledge and understandingnand deliberately cultivates bothnideological and psychological responsesnin its students. That it is successful inndoing so emerges clearly from commentsnof students who have had thenmisfortune to endure the course so far.nAmong the things to do and learn innthe course are to “discuss why thenstudy of genocide is avoided in classroomsnand textbooks.” One suggestednquestion the teacher should ask thenclass is, “How would you respond tonparents who want to shield their childrennfrom the Holocaust?” One studentnhad this to say about the totalnonslaught of the course: “This historynis grim and it can build up inside andnmake you feel ugly and hopeless. Atntimes I did.”nAfter watching a film by the latenJacob Bronowski on science andnknowledge, another student commented,n”I think I understand now. There isn