Friday, June 25, 2010

Zarsky Case

I got an e-mail from Cliff Zarsky today. He had been charged with criminal trespass at an abortion clinic in Corpus Christi. His arrest was a purposeful act with the ultimate goal of challenging and overturning Roe v. Wade. A pre-trial hearing had been scheduled for June 23rd, during which, Mr. Zarsky's Motion for Unborn Personhood by Judicial Knowledge would be considered.

Mr. Zarsky reports that: "The criminal trespass case in Nueces County against Cliff Zarsky was dismissed on 23 June 2010, by motion of the District Attorney's Office for prosecutorial discretion. I am trying to get an appointment with the DA to find out what was the basis of the decision and if the DA's office would consider refilling the complaint."

It seems strange that a defendant would ask that charges be refiled against him after they had been dismissed, but I certainly support Mr Zarsky's efforts.

This case illustrates the challenges of trying to get Roe v. Wade overturned. Just getting a case to the Supreme Court is an unbelievably difficult task, never mind convincing the Court to reverse a previous Court's decision. The best and most direct way to challenge Roe v. Wade is through legislation that circumvents Roe v. Wade by granting full personhood status to all human beings from conception through natural death, and ensuring all the protections that personhood entails. No state is in a better postion to do this than Texas. The Roe v. Wade case overturned a past Texas law, and current Texas law already defines a person as an individual and an individual as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." All our legislators need is the will and the moral courage to enact such a law, and we urge them to do so.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade

I found a video on Youtube today in which Dr. Johnny Hunter compares the slavery, civil rights, and abortion debates. I'd argue that they are all the same because they involve HUMAN rights. But in the video, he confronts head on those in the pro-life movement who are not in favor of personhood laws and amendments...

My favorite quote from the video: "I'm so glad that the abolitionists didn't say, 'Well, you know what, we need to overturn the Dred Scott decision...'"

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Footnote 54

I was re-visiting the Roe v. Wade decision again today, and I had to stop at Footnote 54, which says:

When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained [410 U.S. 113, 158] in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command?

There are other inconsistencies between Fourteenth Amendment status and the typical abortion statute. It has already been pointed out, n. 49, supra, that in Texas the woman is not a principal or an accomplice with respect to an abortion upon her. If the fetus is a person, why is the woman not a principal or an accomplice? Further, the penalty for criminal abortion specified by Art. 1195 is significantly less than the maximum penalty for murder prescribed by Art. 1257 of the Texas Penal Code. If the fetus is a person, may the penalties be different?

While I disagree vehemently with the ultimate findings of Roe v. Wade, this reasoning of the Court makes perfect sense. If, during argument, the State of Texas did assert that preborn children were protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, why did the Texas Penal Code treat the killing of unborn children differently than it treated the killing of other human beings? For review, here is the wording of the sections of the Texas Penal Code that were struck down by Roe v. Wade:

"Article 1191. Abortion

"If any person shall designedly administer to a pregnant woman or knowingly procure to be administered with her consent any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence or means whatever externally or internally applied, and thereby procure an abortion, he shall be confined in the penitentiary not less than two nor more than five years; if it be done without her consent, the punishment shall be doubled. By `abortion' is meant that the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman's womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused.

"Art. 1192. Furnishing the means

"Whoever furnishes the means for procuring an abortion knowing the purpose intended is guilty as an accomplice.

"Art. 1193. Attempt at abortion

"If the means used shall fail to produce an abortion, the offender is nevertheless guilty of an attempt to produce abortion, provided [410 U.S. 113, 118] it be shown that such means were calculated to produce that result, and shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than one thousand dollars.

"Art. 1194. Murder in producing abortion

"If the death of the mother is occasioned by an abortion so produced or by an attempt to effect the same it is murder."

"Art. 1196. By medical advice

"Nothing in this chapter applies to an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."

I fail to see anything in that language that indicated that Texas lawmakers had given even an inkling of thought to the idea that preborn children possessed the inalienable right to life or that they fell under the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. And, as the Roe v. Wade opinion pointed out, why weren't the women seeking abortions guilty of any crime under that statute? As much as I hate to admit it, the Court was right in striking down that law. Of course, what they should have done as a remedy was to determine that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment meant "a human being" and to order the States to fully protect the right to life, and guarantee the equal protection of, all human beings, regardless of age or stage of development. Instead, the Court ruled, as it did in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), that certain human beings could be treated as property and could be either bought and sold or disposed of at will.

What the State of Texas should do and must do is enact laws that actually do recognize that preborn children are persons under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has already indicated that this would be consistent with the Constitution, both in Footnote 54 and in the statement in Part IX of the Roe v. Wade majority opinion that "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

The position that our Governor Rick Perry and so many other supposedly "prolife" leaders hold, 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," has no logical or constitutional basis, as a careful reading of the Roe v. Wade decision will show. It is unfortunate that many of the "prolife" organizations which normally support such candidates, like Texas Alliance for Life, have refused to support personhood laws which would actually protect preborn children. Are they complacent, afraid, or acting out of self-preservation (i.e., if abortion became illegal, would there even be a need for Texas Alliance for Life?)?

Texas has already laid the framework for future laws which would fully protect preborn children from the murder that is going on throughout the state. Current law, specifically Tex. Penal Code §1.07 (26), says that an individual "means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." Tex. Penal Code §19.02 plainly states that a person commits the offense of murder if he "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual." We will be urging Texas lawmakers to repeal Tex. Penal Code §19.06, which excludes unborn children from the protection of this statue defining and prohibiting murder if the killing was committed by the child's mother or her abortionist. All other abortion regulations should also be repealed so that abortion becomes simply another form of murder, punishable like any other form of murder. I have drafted a blueprint of how such legislation might look, found here: Page 1, page 2, and page 3.

The question is, will there be a representative or a state senator with the courage and the will to propose such legislation and the ability to persuade enough of the other lawmakers to support it? We will be contacting all of them between the November elections and the beginning of the Texas Legislative Session in January. It is way past time for the State of Texas to stand up against the over-reaches of the federal government (and this includes all three branches of government), especially when such over-reaches deny the most basic of rights, life, to an entire class of human beings.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Sex and Consequences

I have been thinking about the video of Obama saying that if his daughters make a mistake, he doesn't want them punished with a baby.

This attitude is so wrong on so many different levels, the most obvious of which is this view that a child should ever be viewed as a "punishment." Children are always to be viewed as a blessing from God. Psalm 127:3-4: "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!" And if they aren't a blessing to the biological parents, they are most certainly a blessing to the adoptive ones.

And I can't help but sneer at this idea that Obama plans on teaching his daughters about "values and morals" when those values and morals say that women can kill their preborn children for any reason whatsoever. Those aren't values and morals. Obama is actually teaching them how to rationalize any behavior. If they tell themselves that babies don't have any rights unless and until their umbilical cords are cut, or that they aren't ready to be parents, or that having children would just be a major inconvenience, then they can justify murdering them by abortion. If a store charges prices that are too high, then I should be able to just take a few things extra without paying for them. Certain people will think less of me and maybe even shun me if I tell the truth about it, so it'll be OK if I lie to them. This is not moral; it is moral relativism. Real values and morals teach us that it is always wrong to kill innocent life, it is always wrong to steal, it is always wrong to lie.

One of the first rules of life is that actions have consequences. Obama seems to have missed that lesson, and his daughters are apparently going to miss it as well. How does Obama plan to teach his daughters about sexual morality while telling them that they can circumvent the known consequences of their sexual behavior? The primary purpose of sexual intercourse has always been reproduction. God also made it a sacred union between a man and wife. The world tells us that sex is merely a recreational activity, and to reinforce that, the world has given us birth control, abortion, and fast cures to most venereal diseases. One can't help but notice the massive and continual push to find a cure for HIV/AIDS. Modern society has no respect for the act that creates life; therefore, it has no respect for life.

The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included the possibility of conceiving a child. Abortion is the attempt to escape these consequences. Of course, neither Obama nor this society will tell these girls the consequences of abortion itself. A Planned Parenthood ad from 1964 gives a fairly accurate definition of abortion: "An abortion kills the life of the baby after it has begun." Of course, now that Planned Parenthood is in the business of selling abortion, they steer far from words like "baby," "kills," and "life." They also listed on that 1964 ad one of the possible consequences of abortion, sterility.

Today, the Planned Parenthood website minimizes or just neglects to mention many of the risks. Their current website says: "In-clinic abortion procedures are very safe. But there are risks with any medical procedure." (I'm assuming that they mean that abortions are safe for the women since it has been proven that they aren't at all safe for the babies.) The site then lists a few minor complications that might occur and then makes this statement: "Most often, these complications are simple to treat with medicine or other treatments." Planned Parenthood makes some mention of "extremely rare" more serious complications and then uses distortions to compare those risks with the risks involved in childbirth. Planned Parenthood's entire method for promoting and selling abortions involves lies and deception designed to hide and/or downplay the possible physical consequences of abortion. And they don't even mention the emotional or spiritual consequences.

Scandals, investigations, cover-ups, and perjuries in the news today all demonstrate that escaping and hiding the consequences of one's actions are simply the way of the world. What is most heinous is when those actions include the killing of innocent human beings. We must demand that our government protect ALL innocent human beings. I was reading the 94th Psalm yesterday, and I couldn't help but think of the United States Supreme Court and its Roe v. Wade ruling as I went through verses 20-23:

"Can wicked rulers be allied with you,
those who frame injustice by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous
and condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has become my stronghold,
and my God the rock of my refuge.
He will bring back on them their iniquity
and wipe them out for their wickedness;
the LORD our God will wipe them out." (ESV)

On a lighter note, I will be attending the Midwest Personhood Prolife Conference in Wichita, Kansas on September 11th of this year. I would encourage everyone reading this to come and network with fellow advocates of personhood laws and amendments and to get updated on the efforts in the various states.

Friday, June 4, 2010

New Hero

After my debates with Texas Alliance for Life regarding their opposition to Personhood and their generally complacent attitude about taking action that would actually halt the killing of children, I was feeling pretty down about the Texas prolife movement. Then I met an 81-year-old attorney from Corpus Christi named Cliff Zarsky. Ok, we didn't really meet, but we did have a very enlightening phone conversation.

Mr. Zarsky has done extensive research into both statuory and case law regarding the issues of individual personhood and the inalienable right to life. He has built a very strong case for destroying Roe v. Wade. Of course, to present such a case to a court, one needs to have some kind of standing, something like a criminal indictment. So in January, Mr. Zarsky purposely went out to get arrested for criminal trespess at an abortion clinic in Corpus Christi. An account of his arrest can be found here:

Mr Zarsky has written a legal brief in conjunction with his criminal trespass case which details several points on which Roe v. Wade should be discarded. The entire brief can be found here: , but the section I would like to highlight here in the blog is one in which the hypocrisy and basic dishonesty of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is detailed:

In the U.S. Supreme Court’s case of Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmum claimed, “The word person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” He came to this conclusion by asserting that “no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, but conceded that if the “personhood” of the fetus “is established [the case for abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed by the ‘Fourteenth Amendment. Roe, 410 U.S. at 156-157.

A 1885 Supreme Court case clearly establishes the “personhood” of the fetus. The Supreme Court upheld the right to due process for preborn persons in the womb in McArthur v. Scott 113 US 340,440 (1885), holding that any court case is “null and void” unless all of the parties to the controversy are represented in court, because a person must have the opportunity to present their side of the story in court. Id.387,391.

Preborn children in the womb were cut out of a probated will without proper representation in court. The Supreme Court ruled in their favor, since their right to due process was violated: “A decree annulling the probate of a will is not merely irregular and erroneous but absolutely void, as against persons interested in the will and not parties to the decree, and as the parties these plaintiffs were neither actually nor constructively parties to the decree setting aside the will of their grandfather, it follows that that decree is no bar to the assertion of their rights under the will.” Id.404. Where a court fails to grant the fundamental right of representation to any party whose rights are being decided upon, that case is void for lack of due process. The Court also held that preborn persons in the womb can hold vested rights, not just rights “contingent upon live birth,”id.384, and therefore the class of preborn in the womb “Posterity” are included in the standard legal definition of a person “one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed. The applicable Latin maxim is coram no judice, and this was the basis for the Court’s decision in McArthur v. Scott, 404. Since the Court denied a motion for a guardian ad litem to join in the arguments in Roe, Doe v. Scott, 321 F. Supp. 1385 (N.D. III. 1971), cert denied 409 U.S. 817 (1972), so too should Roe v. Wade be considered null and void by this rule of law per McArthur v. Scott.

Neither abortion “survivor” children nor unborn children threatened and endangered by abortion were represented before the U.S. District Court or the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe. Abortion “survivor” children born in this country are U.S. citizens (with extremely minor exceptions), yet they are doomed to die and die primarily due to prematurity, abortion death or lack of care. Unborn children, with well recognized legal postures under the laws of the United States of America, Texas and other States, are killed outright by abortion. Abortion “survivors” and unborn children are persons or entities with legal personalities under the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Judgment’s of the U.S. District Court and the Supreme Court in Roe, rendered without any representation of such victims by guardian or next friend (or by counsel for such guardian or next friend), constituted naked deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process of law, in violation of the 5th Amendment. Accordingly, such Judgments are unconstitutional and void as to them. McArthur v. Scott, 113 U.S, 340, 391-392, 404 (1885) (unborn children); Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S.714,733-734 (1878) (U.S. citizens).

Neither the U.S. District Court, nor the Supreme Court had personal jurisdiction over such abortion “survivor” or unborn children in Roe. Yet each such category of children was affected vitally by those proceedings, and had a right to be before the Courts, therefore, were unconstitutional and void as to them. Ibid.

Moreover, this deficiency operated to divest the U.S. District Court and the Supreme Court of authority to pronounce judgment affecting them personally. Accordingly, the Judgment of such Courts, rendered without personal jurisdiction over the Infant Victims of abortion, are void as violative of fundamental principles of personal jurisdiction. The unborn children who were conceived and killed by abortion after Roe could not be affected jurisdictionally by Roe in their rights posture, yet they die from Roe. Id at 391,392, 404.

In McArthur v. Scott, the Supreme Court recognized the due process rights of preborn persons in the womb which is the essence of personhood, and is in keeping with the Supreme Court’s own historic understanding of the word “person.” In United States v. Palme, 14-17 U.S. 607, (1818), Chief Justice John Marshall stated, “The words ‘any person or persons,’ are broad enough to comprehend every human being.” Justice Stephen Field stated in Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic…This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.”

The hypocrisy in Roe is finally recognized in this: It is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop.

The Roe decision asserted “no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” But there are several cases cited herein and more that clearly hold unborn humans are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that any decision denying due process and equal protection to the unborn is null and void. Is it not the duty of the trial and appellate courts to accept the stare decisis of the highest court protecting the right to life guaranteed in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment? That would be more relevant in this case, because the cases relied upon herein by the Defendant were unknown and not considered by the Supreme Court in Roe, and seven of the Justices agreed that if “personhood of the fetus is established, the case for abortion] of course collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” How could any court hold that the “personhood” of the unborn human has not been established by the multitude of cited cases? Justice Stephen Field stated in Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic…This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.”

In Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) the court rejected a challenge to Ohio’s abortion laws, holding that the implied right to privacy must inevitably fall in conflict with the express provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. The difference between this case and Griswold (overturned a ban on the use of contraceptives) is clearly apparent, for here there is an embryo of a fetus incapable of protecting itself.” Id. 745-46.

As the court in Steinberg explained, “a new life comes into being with the union of human egg and sperm cells,” Id at 746, and “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it,” Id 746-47. As a legal matter, an absence of case support is irrelevant and there may well not be cases holding new-born infants or other classes of humans are persons which would not mean they are beyond the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nelson v. Galveston, 14 S.W. 1021, Supreme Court of Texas 1890 held in agreement with Lord Hardwicke, “that a child in the mother’s womb is a person in rerum natura, and that by rules of the civil and common law “she [the child] was to all intents and purposes a child. . . and is to be considered as living for all purposes.” The court ruled that a posthumous child may recover damages for the father’s death.

Gray v. State, 77 Tex Cr. R. 221 (1915), involves the review of Gray’s indictment for producing the abortion of Sadie Moore’s child. Though the indictment was tested to see if it complied with state statutes, the court examined the common law before doing so (and affirming the conviction) said most states held abortion can be criminally prosecuted any time after conception.

Leal v. C.C. Pitts Sand and Gravel, Inc., 419 S.W.2d 820, Supreme Court of Texas, 1967 upheld Nelson v. Galveston above, that a viable infant born alive would have had a cause of action for prenatal injuries sustained in an automobile accident had the infant survived.

Wagner v. Finch, 413 F3d 267 Fifth Circuit (1969) held that a child of deceased father, born after the father’s death is sufficiently in being to be capable of living with it’s father at the time of his death, and the fact that the worker died before birth of the child already “in being” is no legal or equitable reason to prohibit child from social security benefits.

Raleigh Fitkin-Paul Morgan Memorial Hospital v Anderson 201 A.2d 537,538 (N.J. 1964) held that the unborn child is entitled to the law’s protection and that an appropriate order should be made to insure blood transfusions to the mother in the event that they are necessary in the opinion of the physician in charge.

McArthur v. Scott’s holding, and other cases following that holding of the procedural right to due process, is a right that is the fundamental law of the land, and a right without which all other rights would be unenforceable. If the rule of law means anything, any court would be justified under our Constitution in disregarding Roe and following McArthur v. Scott, and with the super abundance of other evidence of personhood of the unborn there is a legal and moral mandate to uphold the preborn human in the womb as a “person” under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.

Cliff Zarsky deserves our unwavering support and our prayers in his efforts to support the right to life of all human beings. The progress of the criminal trespess case can be followed at Corpus Christi Right to Life, and I will be posting updates to it here on the blog as well.

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Random Thoughts on States' Rights and Other Topics

This past Saturday, I made a hasty post suggesting that if the Texas Legislature were to pass a personhood law effectively banning all abortions in Texas and if the United States Supreme Court were to eventually strike down such a law that Texas should secede from the United States. I call it a hasty post because I was rushing out the door with my wife and kids to go to my mother's house while composing it. We wound up being an hour late to Mom's house...

Since writing that post, I have been reflecting on the Constitution, the idea of States' rights currently being touted by many in the Tea Party movements, and the role of the federal government in general. I do not make any claims to being any kind of a constitutional expert. I am simply someone who loves the Constitution and the principles upon which my country was founded, and it grieves me greatly to see the direction this nation is now taking. Barack Obama, on the other hand, does claim to be an expert on the Constitution, having been a constitutional law professor, and yet, everything he has done in his public life indicates a disdain for that Constitution. He seems to view it as an obstacle to his plans for the country. In fact, it just seems like the entire study of "constitutional law" is a study in diluting, circumventing, and otherwise undermining what the Constitution actually says. Frankly, I would take one person like me who loves and respects the Constitution over a thousand so-called constitutional experts like Barack Obama.

I mentioned in that previous post the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, written by Thomas Jefferson, and found here: This resolution provides a framework of how Jefferson thought the Constitution should be intepreted. It would also seem to be a starting point for the States to nullify both the Roe v. Wade decision and Obamacare. Resolution One of these Kentucky Resolutions provides quite a bit of food for thought...

1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Before reading the Kentucky Resolutions, I had never given that much thought to the idea that the Constitution was a compact between the States. The federal government did not create the Constitution, but rather, the Constitution created the federal government. What a novel concept! Taking that into account, Jefferson is right when he says, "...the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers." Why is it then that the common perception, even among our elected officials, is that the United States Supreme Court is the "final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself?" Why do so many consider Roe v. Wade the "law of the land," and that it can only be superceded by another Supreme Court decision or a Constitutional amendment?

I thought quite a bit this weekend about this idea that the created (the Federal government) can manipulate and dilute the creator (the Constitution). I drew a parallel between that and today's Christian church. For example, many denominations have softened their stance on the issue of homosexuality. Some of them have even begun admitting openly gay individuals into the clergy. Is not the Bible the Word of God? And does not the Word of God say that homosexuality is an abomination, a perversion (Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-32)? Does the Bible not mean what it says right there in black and white? How is it that the created can attempt to change and/or ignore the decrees of the Creator? Perhaps it is this willful nature of the Christian church today that keeps it from fighting against the wholesale slaughter of millions of preborn children. The church needs to be obedient to God and His decrees in all areas. The pastor of my church, Dr. Tommy Teague said something in a sermon several months ago: "God didn't say something because it was true; something is true because God says it." I don't know if that originated with him, but it has always stuck with me, and it is an attitude that all Christian churches need to take.

The United States Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, but it is now widely regarded as the sole and final interpreter of that Constitution. This was not the intention of the Founding Fathers, and it needs to change. Thomas Jefferson said, in those Kentucky Resolutions, that "as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." The Constitution is a compact among the States (the aforementioned powers) without a common judge (the United States Supreme Court was a creation of the compact, so it cannot be a common judge), so each State has an equal right to question the constitutionality of anything coming from the federal government, including decisions by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps I should use the Kentucky Resolutions as a model and add the following preamble to the sample Texas Personhood bill I wrote...

Resolved, That children still in the womb are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the acts of the Supreme Court of the United States, decreed on the 22nd day of January, 1973, intituled Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, which assume powers over children in the womb, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Except that, if the federal government actually followed the Constitution, this statement wouldn't be necessary. The protection of the right to life of unborn children should not be left up the States. The Preamble to the Constitution says that the Constitution was established to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." What is our "Posterity?" The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines posterity as: "1 : the offspring of one progenitor to the furthest generation" and "2 : all future generations." It is the ultimate denial of the "Blessings of liberty" to allow the murder of our offspring in the womb. The rest of the Constitution, including the amendments (especially the Fifth and Fourteenth), affirms this basic right to life. The government created by this Constitution should be the one to protect that right to life. It truly is up to the United States Congress to supercede the Supreme Court and put it in its place in regards to Roe v. Wade. Article III, Section II of the Constitution says, in part, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." In other words, Congress has been charged by the Constitution with regulating the jurisdiction of the Court. So why has it not taken action to nullify the Court's immoral and unjust acts?

I titled this entry "Random Thoughts..." for a reason. I really don't have a strong thesis other than to demonstrate how broken our government is. And my debates with Texas Alliance for Life demonstrate how broken the prolife movement is. To use the vernacular of the movie "The Godfather," we need to be going to the mattresses for our unborn children. Why are so many prolife organizations so complacent in standing by and allowing a broken government to enable the child murderers working among us? We need good men and women of conscience to have the will to do what is right and oppose both what is evil and that which enables evil.