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.
So, let me see if I can understand this. While making his case regarding the trespass, he will make clear the personhood of the unborn, thereby forcing the issue into the court. Then, the court will vicariously recognize the personhood of the unborn while addressing the trespass.
ReplyDeleteIs that correct?
He was using the third person defense, as in he acted to protect a third person from unlawful force. This has been determined to be a valid defense in Texas. He wrote a brief asking the court to accept that the preborn are persons by judicial knowledge. The plan was that the trial court would deny it, Mr. Zarsky would be convicted of criminal trespass, and he would then appeal the denial all the way to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteOK, that makes sense. But, they saw it coming and dropped the charges? So, he's asking them to reinstate the charges?
ReplyDeleteMaybe he ought to criminally trespass again? and again? and again?
ReplyDeletemaybe a lot of folks should do the same in many different places.Might trip the bort heads up that way.
ReplyDelete