Rick Perry's position is that abortion should be legal only in cases involving rape or incest or when carrying a pregnancy to term would threaten the woman’s life. Debra Medina's campaign website has the following statement: "Life begins at conception and concludes at natural death. Every human is created in the image of God. God, not man, is the measure of all things. Every human life is precious and I will work to protect innocent human life." In personal conversations that I have had with her, she indicated her support for personhood laws in Texas. I am still waiting on a reply from Rick Perry to the letter I wrote him in December.
But let's analyze Rick Perry's position on abortion. He says that abortion should be illegal except in cases involving rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life. Why, then, does Rick Perry think other abortions should be illegal? Could it be because life begins at conception, and to destroy any life after that constitutes a homicide? If that is the case, why should the homicide of a child conceived in rape or incest continue to be legal, while other children receive legal protection? The child had no say in the circumstances of his or her conception. Why does that child not receive the same protection as other children? Isn't that a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause which prohibits any State from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws?" The only way for Rick Perry (or anyone else holding this view that abortion should remain legal in cases of rape or incest) to get around the amendment is to claim that a child in the womb is not a person. So if the child in the womb is not a person, why does Rick Perry think most abortions should be illegal? When taking into account the rape and incest exception, the only plausible explanation I can think of is that he wants to use government to force women to face the consequences of their sexual activity. That view really isn't that far off from Obama's famous statement that he doesn't want his daughters "punished with a baby."
Politicians take this "pro-life with exceptions for rape and incest" position because they want to win elections. They either just don't think logically about the issue, or they are afraid to take a stand and try to pursuade people that what they stand for is right and just. My question is, what good are these supposed "pro-life" politicians? This Texas Alliance for Life newsletter touts these "pro-life candidates" and the supposedly pro-life bills and policies that they implement, but what good are a bunch of laws that describe conditions under which abortionists can continue to kill children? What good are these "pro-life" politicians when, just yesterday, a new abortion super-center opened in Houston (http://www.lifenews.com/state5093.html)?
This is not to say that I don't think that the people at Texas Alliance for Life have their hearts in the right place. But they and many in the pro-life movement are paralyzed by fear. They, like too many of our government officials, think that a United States Supreme Court opinion trumps anything that any other branch of government can do. There is such an emphasis in the pro-life movement on overturning Roe v. Wade that it makes itself impotent to actually stopping baby-killing irregardless of what the Supreme Court says. To illustrate this fear, just look at the Texas Alliance for Life Facebook page and click on the "Just Others" link to see comments from regular users.
The first item listed is from Aeron Mills from March 1st (apparently Texas Alliance for Life thereafter took away the ability for fans to post original items to the group page). Aeron Mills posted the following:
Debra Medina "Texas law defines life as
beginning at fertilization - taking of life as murder (except where
we are double minded and allow mothers and doctors to abort) Fix
that and you've addressed the problem in the law - requiring an
ultrasound doesn't stop the abortion. It's just more incrementalism.
Texas should revisit our own law - not allow exceptions, ban
abortion and let the court battles begin. The government has a duty
to protect innocent life - our state law says that begins at
fertilization"
The first comment under this is directly from Texas Alliance for Life:
This is the bill that Gov. Perry signed into law in 2003, the Prenatal Protection Act. Unfortunately, changing it as suggested above would render it unconstitutional in the eyes of the US Supreme Court. The problem is that the majority of the Court supports Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand. We do not have the votes to overturn Roe to allow Texas to fully protect unborn babies and their mothers from abortion.
When I saw the response of Texas Alliance for Life to this posting, I was reminded of the story of Joshua and Caleb. Moses sent spies into the promised land. When the spies came back, all but Joshua and Caleb said that the land was occupied by giants and large, fortified cities and that the Israelites would not be able to defeat them. Joshua and Caleb reported that, with God, the Israelites could defeat whoever occupied the land. Texas Alliance for Life is acting like the other spies when it should be acting as Joshua and Caleb.
Why are we worrying about votes in the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v. Wade? We've been waiting for that for 37 years while standing by and allowing the murder of fifty million of our fellow human beings. The people killing these babies want us to keep on waiting for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but we CANNOT WAIT. We need to take action now.
I say, to Hell with Roe v. Wade. Texas needs to protect the lives of these innocent children, and it needs to do it NOW! The only way to do this is to declare that all human beings are persons, from fertization to natural death. We cannot be paralyzed with fear. We need government officials who will act in good conscience and do what they know is right, and if protecting the right to life of all human beings is not right, then nothing is. As Personhood USA co-founder Cal Zastrow often says, "Personhood Now!" And as Debra Medina is quoted here as saying, "Let the court battles begin."
Thanks Dan. The tyranny of bad court decisions can only be eclipsed by the cowardly respect for them from free people who should know better.
ReplyDeleteCourt Schmort! Texas should stop the baby-killing today!
Cal Zastrow
Can some please read the constitution for a change!!!!!!! Article 3, section 2, paragraph 2, says that the congress regulates the court, not the other way around. The 14th amendment, section 5 assures congress the power to make law on personhood.
ReplyDeleteThe court over stepped it's authority in RvW. There was no law for them to rule on. They should have no billed the case. Insted, they took the place of congress and made law by judicial decree.
It sickens me that main stream prolifers like Texas alliance for life have bought into the lie that the court has the final say over everything..
Personhood is the only way to go. Prolifers have been lost for 40 years in a wilderness of confusion and manipulation. Not one child saved after billions in prolife donations in support of fake politicians and laws that just regulate the manner in which a child can be murdered.
ReplyDelete