BGCO Cowardice

The Oklahoma Legislature is currently considering a personhood/abolition bill, referred to as Senate Bill 13.  The bill has recently run into opposition by supposedly prolife senators in both the committee and on the general floor.  Unfortunately, it has also run into opposition from an unexpected source, the state's Southern Baptist leadership.  The official name of the organization is the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma, or BGCO.

Here is the open letter they posted to Oklahoma Baptists in which they state their opposition to Senate Bill 13: https://www.baptistmessenger.com/an-open-letter-to-oklahoma-baptists-regarding-abortion-and-protecting-human-life/

February 21, 2019

Dear Oklahoma Baptists,

The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma’s stance against abortion and for protecting human life is long-held and well-known. We want to make sure you hear directly from us what our position is regarding recent efforts to fight abortion and protect life.

The BGCO is categorically opposed to abortion, and it is our prayer and goal to see lives saved and an end to abortion in Oklahoma and beyond. Through the years, Oklahoma Baptists have championed numerous bills designed to protect life and fight abortion.

Together, we have seen lives saved and the abortion rate decline. Yet much more needs to be done, and we will not rest until every life is safe. That is why we will be forming a work group to work even more aggressively toward the goal of ending abortion in Oklahoma.

In recent days, you may have read discussions about Oklahoma State Senate Bill 13, the “Abolition of Abortion Act.” Regarding SB 13, after considerable prayer and careful study of the proposed policy, including direct conversations with the bill’s principal author, we have several concerns, including:

·         Credible expert legal/policy analysis indicates SB 13 will be invalidated immediately by the courts, if it passes at all, and we cannot save lives with legislation that never goes into effect.

·         SB 13, as proposed, unnecessarily and purposely repeals hard-earned pro-life laws that have helped significantly reduce Oklahoma’s abortion rate, including repealing our state’s ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification requirements, the unborn child protection from dismemberment abortion, among numerous other life-saving laws.

·         The bill even goes so far to repeal original Oklahoma laws already on the books that allows abortion only to save a mother’s life.

We recently held discussions with the bill’s author, asking these concerns to be taken into consideration. In the meantime, we cannot in good conscience get behind SB 13 as it is proposed.

There are more proven and plausible life-saving policies Oklahoma could enact en route to ending the tragic practice of abortion, while simultaneously offering support and help for abortion-vulnerable mothers.

We will continue to strive for the day in which every human life—unborn and born—in this state and beyond is protected. With all the strength God gives us, we resolve to build a culture of life that recognizes each person is made in His image (Gen. 1:27). God help us…

For Christ, for life,

Dr. Hance Dilbeck

Executive Director-Treasurer, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma

Dr. Blake Gideon

Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Edmond;
President, Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma

Brian Hobbs

Editor, The Baptist Messenger

I immediately responded with the following:

I don't think I have ever read a more cowardly letter written by members of what is supposed to be an evangelical organization. The Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton court opinions (and let us not forget that they are mere court opinions, not law) were issued 46 years ago. 46 years! And in that time, over 60 million babies have been murdered. 60,000,000. The Super Bowl held earlier this month had just over 70,000 people in attendance. You would need 857 such stadiums to represent the number of babies killed from abortion since 1973.

The Constitution of the United States never granted the sole authority to interpret said Constitution to any court. That was a power that the Supreme Court took for itself. Thomas Jefferson once said that the Constitution was a compact among the states and that "this 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." The States who created the Constitution (and thus the Federal government, which includes the Supreme Court) should have more say than the courts over what is Constitutional or not. That they have abdicated this power to the Federal government is an erroneous miscarriage of justice. It is past time for the States to take this power back.

You say that "SB 13, as proposed, unnecessarily and purposely repeals hard-earned pro-life laws" without realizing that all of those laws spelled out conditions under which an abortionist may murder a baby. We finally have a bill that says unequivocally that abortionists may NOT murder a baby, and you are opposed to this? I can understand a tiny bit the pro-life organizations' fear of irrelevancy if SB 13 passes, but I cannot understand why the Baptist General Convention should fear the abolition of abortion.

Since this letter reeks of fear, I will leave with a few Bible verses:

For I, the Lord your God,
hold your right hand;
it is I who say to you, “Fear not,
I am the one who helps you.”
Isaiah 41:13

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.
1 John 4:18

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”
Romans 8:15

Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Matthew 10:29-31

Two Scenarios

These are, for now, both fictional accounts of what might happen if either bill becomes law.  I think the scenes illustrate the differences between the two bills currently under consideration in the Texas Legislature...

Scenario 1:  Texas Attorney General defending the Fetal Heartbeat Bill (HB 1500) to the Supreme Court during oral arguments.

Justice: What was the purpose of HB 1500?

AG: To prohibit abortions after a heartbeat has been detected in the child.

Justice: And why would the State have an interest in prohibiting abortions after such a time?

AG: To protect the right to life of the child.

Justice:  When, under Texas law, does the child attain this right to life?

AG:  There is no specification of that in the code.  Each person is endowed by the Creator with the right to life. 

Justice:  Each person.  And how does the State define a person?

AG:  According to the definitions found in the Texas Penal Code, a person is “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth”.

Justice:  But under HB 1500, a fetus can be aborted before a heartbeat is found, correct?

AG:  Yes, that’s correct.

Justice:  And that heartbeat doesn’t show up until quite a few weeks after fertilization, correct?

AG:  Yes, I believe so.

Justice:  According to the 14^th Amendment, equal protection of the law must be given to each person.  But if an unborn child is a person at fertilization, and that unborn child can be killed before a heartbeat is found, then you can’t make the claim that HB 1500 provides 14^th Amendment protection to that child, can you?

AG:  No Your Honor, but we never made that claim.  I said that the State wanted to protect the right to life of the child.

Justice:  But you just admitted that HB 1500 does not protect the life of every person as that term is already defined in Texas law, correct?

AG:  Yes, that’s correct.

Justice:  Who is responsible for determining whether there is a detectable heartbeat or not?

AG:  Under HB 1500, that would be the doctor performing the abortion.

Justice:  The doctor performing the abortion.  Such a person would have a financial interest in carrying on with the abortion procedure, correct?

AG:  I would assume so, yes.

Justice: It seems like the bill puts that doctor in an awkward position.

AG:  The bill would count upon the ethics and integrity of the doctor.

Justice:  The doctor who has been hired to kill and remove the fetus?

AG: Yes.

Justice:  Under the bill, may an abortion be carried out even after a heartbeat is found in the fetus?

AG:  Only if there is a medical emergency.

Justice:  Does the bill define such an emergency?

AG:  No Your Honor, the bill doesn't, but Chapter 171 of the Texas Health and Safety Code does have a definition of Medical Emergency already in place.

Justice:  And what is that definition?

AG:  I quote: "'Medical emergency' means a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that, as certified by a physician, places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function unless an abortion is performed."

Justice:  As certified by a physician?  You mean the person performing the abortion?

AG:  Yes, a person doing the abortion in Texas must be a physician, so that certification could come from the person performing the abortion.

Justice:  And we have already established that this person would have a financial interest in carrying on with the abortion procedure?

AG:  Yes.  But once again, we are counting upon the ethics and integrity of that doctor.

Justice:  What happens to a doctor who is found to have violated the bill?

AG:  He faces prosecution for a state jail felony.

Justice:  That would be the least severe felony?

AG: Yes.

Justice:  What happens to the mother who procured the abortion?

AG:  Nothing.  She is not held criminally liable.

Justice:  Under any circumstances?

AG:  No.

Justice:  But she may, under this bill, sue the doctor for wrongful death?

AG:  Yes.

Justice:  I don’t understand.  She hired and paid this doctor to terminate her pregnancy, to kill and remove the baby from her womb, and yet this law allows her to then sue that doctor for wrongful death?  Whose wrongful death?

AG:  The child’s.

Justice:  The child’s?  You mean the child whose right to life this law is supposed to protect?

AG:  Yes.

Justice:  And who is responsible for enforcing the bill?

AG:  The Texas Medical Board.

Justice:  The Medical Board?

AG: Yes.

Justice:  Thank you.

Scenario Two: Texas Attorney General defending the Abolition Bill, HB 896, during oral arguments at the Supreme Court

Justice:  What is the purpose of HB 896?

AG: To protect and ensure the right to life of all persons.

Justice:  And how is a person defined under Texas law?

AG: According to the definitions found in the Texas Penal Code, a person is “a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth”.

Justice:  And HB 896 prohibits abortion on every child who falls under that definition?

AG:  Yes, it does.

Justice:  Are there exceptions to this?  May an abortion be performed for any reason?

AG:  The bill prohibits any medical procedure or prescription with the intent of killing or causing the death of any person.  We expect, in all situations, that medical personnel will work to preserve the life of all patients.

Justice: So the bill treats an abortion as a medical procedure?

AG:  No, it actually removes all the regulations on abortion from the various Texas codes.  An abortion in Texas would be treated as a homicide case.

Justice:  How does that fit with the United States Constitution?

AG:  The 14^th Amendment states that “no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.  I can state without reservation that HB 896 does that for all persons regardless of their age or stage of development.

Justice:  Who is responsible for enforcing the bill?

AG:  Regular law enforcement.  The same people who would enforce the laws against any other type of homicide.

Justice:  Thank you.

House Bill 1500 vs. 896

Here we go again.  Texas Representative Briscoe Cain just filed House Bill 1500 (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB01500I.htm) prohibiting physicians from performing an abortion once a fetal heartbeat has been detected.  Representative Cain and the co-authors mean well, but there are several problems with the bill.  The first is that the responsibility of detecting said heartbeat is assigned to the abortionist (i.e. the person hired by the mother to kill the baby).  The second is that exceptions to this prohibition are allowed for "medical emergencies", but the bill leaves it to the abortionist to define what a medical emergency is. But the biggest problem with this bill is that it does not recognize 14th Amendment protections ("... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") to unborn children, even though the Texas Penal Code already defines them as persons (PENAL § 1.07.a.(38) “Person” means an individual, corporation, or association. AND PENAL § 1.07.a.(26) “Individual” means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.).  Instead, HB 1500 treats abortion like a simple medical procedure that can be regulated.  Recent history has already shown us that such bills will not be upheld in Federal courts. The bill also includes a section about what to do if enforcement of any part of the act is blocked or declared to be invalid.  It seems that the bill's author already knows that it will not be upheld by the courts. By contrast, House Bill 896 (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB00896I.htm)  very simply grants 14th Amendment protects to everyone who falls under that definition of person that is already the law in the Texas Penal Code.  An abortion is classified as a homicide, not merely a prohibited medical procedure. HB 896 is something unlike anything that has ever been passed out of any state legislature, a bill that admits what we who were all once unborn children already know, that our personhood started at the beginning of our lives and that that beginning was fertilization.  It's a simple law, and when I look at it and compare it to what Justice Blackmon wrote in Roe v. Wade, I believe that it would withstand a judicial review.  These next two paragraphs are from Footnote 54 of the Roe v. Wade majority opinion: "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?" HB 1500 in no way conforms to the logic used in Footnote 54 of Roe v. Wade.  The exception for "medical emergencies" is directly addressed in the first paragraph of the quotation.  HB 1500 also assigns no blame or responsibility on the mother for the killing of her child, something addressed in the second paragraph of the quotation.  In fact, HB 1500 grants the mother to power to sue the abortionist for wrongful death of her child if that abortionist is found in violation of HB 1500, as if we are rewarding her for her complicity in her child's murder. Since it is obvious that the Legislature will not pass both HB 896 and HB 1500, we ask all legislators to support HB 896.

Text of House Bill 896

Here is the text of House Bill 896:

86R6142 SCL-F
	By: Tinderholt	H.B. No. 896

	A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
	AN ACT
	relating to prohibiting abortion and protecting the rights of an
	unborn child.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
	SECTION 1.  The heading to Section 151.002, Family Code, is
	amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 151.002.  RIGHTS OF A LIVING CHILD [AFTER AN ABORTION OR
	PREMATURE BIRTH].
	SECTION 2.  Section 151.002(a), Family Code, is amended to
	read as follows:
	(a)  A living human child, from the moment of fertilization
	on fusion of a human spermatozoon with a human ovum, [born alive
	after an abortion or premature birth] is entitled to the same
	rights, powers, and privileges as are secured or granted by the laws
	of this state to any other human child [born alive after the normal
	gestation period].
	SECTION 3.  Subchapter B, Chapter 402, Government Code, is
	amended by adding Section 402.0375 to read as follows:
	Sec. 402.0375.  ABORTION PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The
	attorney general shall monitor this state's enforcement of Chapters
	19 and 22, Penal Code, in relation to abortion. The attorney
	general shall direct a state agency to enforce those laws,
	regardless of any contrary federal law, executive order, or court
	decision.
	SECTION 4.  The heading to Chapter 370, Local Government
	Code, is amended to read as follows:
	CHAPTER 370. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATING TO [MUNICIPAL AND
	COUNTY] HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR MORE THAN ONE TYPE OF LOCAL
	GOVERNMENT
	SECTION 5.  Chapter 370, Local Government Code, is amended
	by adding Section 370.007 to read as follows:
	Sec. 370.007.  ABORTION PROHIBITION ENFORCEMENT. The
	governing body of a political subdivision of this state shall
	ensure that the political subdivision enforces Chapters 19 and 22,
	Penal Code, in relation to abortion, regardless of any contrary
	federal law, executive order, or court decision.
	SECTION 6.  Section 19.06, Penal Code, is amended to read as
	follows:
	Sec. 19.06.  APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT.
	Notwithstanding any other law, this [This] chapter applies [does
	not apply] to the death of an unborn child, regardless of whether
	[if] the conduct charged is:
	(1)  conduct committed by the mother of the unborn
	child;
	(2)  a [lawful medical] procedure performed by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider, including [with
	the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the
	intended result of the procedure;
	[(3)]  a [lawful medical] procedure performed [by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
	consent] as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section
	160.102, Family Code; or
	(3) [(4)]  the dispensation or administration of a drug
	[in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in
	accordance with law].
	SECTION 7.  Section 22.12, Penal Code, is amended to read as
	follows:
	Sec. 22.12.  APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT.
	Notwithstanding any other law, this [This] chapter applies [does
	not apply] to conduct charged as having been committed against an
	individual who is an unborn child, regardless of whether [if] the
	conduct is:
	(1)  committed by the mother of the unborn child;
	(2)  a [lawful medical] procedure performed by a
	physician or other health care provider, including [with the
	requisite consent;
	[(3)]  a [lawful medical] procedure performed [by a
	physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite
	consent] as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section
	160.102, Family Code; or
	(3) [(4)]  the dispensation or administration of a drug
	[in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in
	accordance with law].
	SECTION 8.  The following provisions are repealed:
	(1)  Section 71.003(c), Civil Practice and Remedies
	Code;
	(2)  Section 103.002(b), Occupations Code;
	(3)  Section 20.01(5), Penal Code; and
	(4)  Section 49.12, Penal Code.
	SECTION 9.  (a) The changes in law made by this Act apply
	only to conduct that occurs on or after the effective date of this
	Act. Conduct that occurs before the effective date of this Act is
	governed by the law in effect immediately before the effective date
	of this Act, and that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
	(b)  The changes in law made by this Act apply only to an
	offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act. An
	offense committed before the effective date of this Act is governed
	by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the former
	law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of this
	section, an offense is committed before the effective date of this
	Act if any element of the offense occurs before the effective date.
	SECTION 10.  Any federal law, executive order, or court
	decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is
	in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States
	Constitution and is therefore void. The State of Texas, a political
	subdivision of this state, and any agent of this state or a
	political subdivision of this state may, but is not required to,
	enter an appearance, special or otherwise, in any federal suit
	challenging this Act.
	SECTION 11.  This Act takes effect immediately if it
	receives a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each
	house, as provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.
	If this Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate
	effect, this Act takes effect September 1, 2019.

Facebook Posts

I have written three Facebook posts that I want to share on this blog.  This first one was in reference to an article on Iowa's Fetal Heartbeat Bill that was signed into law this past spring and then struck down by a court not long after:

Why are we pro-life? I mean seriously, why do we believe the way we do about abortion? Is it to prevent women from escaping the consequences of past actions? No, of course not. It is because we believe that unborn children possess the right to life that all born persons possess, from the moment of conception on. We need a law that recognizes this.

I read the Iowa bill, and it does not recognize the right to life of unborn children. It was also fairly obvious that it was going to get struck down and will continue getting struck down in appellate courts. It treats abortions as simple medical procedures to be regulated. There were exceptions for medical emergencies, and those medical emergencies included cases of rape (I could imagine men being falsely accused of rape by a mother intent on having her child killed). The administration of the new regulation was left to the Iowa Board of Health, not law enforcement. And it also assigned no civil or criminal liability to a woman upon whom an abortion was performed in violation of the new law. In other words, it wasn't much different from the Texas law that was struck down by Roe v. Wade. These next two paragraphs are taken directly from the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade...

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?

The Iowa fetal heartbeat bill didn't address any of these counters to the arguments made in Roe v. Wade 46 years ago. I'm sure that some of the legislators in Iowa had good intentions. But I'm also sure that a lot of them knew this bill would be struck down in court even before they passed it. So why did they even bother? I suspect that it was so they could claim to be making progress in the fight against abortion when they come up for re-election. "We passed the bill," they will say. "Re-elect me so I can try again." I'm tired of the lives of these unborn children being used as a political tool.

Texas HB896 is a much different kind of bill, removing all abortion regulations and exceptions and leaving the current legal definition of a person in the Texas Penal Code (which includes children from fertilization onward) and would treat an abortion as a homicide case.

____________________________________________________________________

This one was posted mainly so I could tag the Texas legislators on my Facebook friends list...

Texas House Bill 896 would eliminate all regulations on abortion while also removing the exceptions for abortion in the Texas Penal Code regarding homicides. It would, in effect, enable a prosecution for murder for anyone who commits an abortion.

The Texas Prenatal Protection Act of 2003 set the definition of a person as "a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Texas Penal Code 1.07 (26) and (38)). That act has been upheld in court several times since then, meaning that the courts regard that definition as Constitutional. Removing the exceptions for abortion, besides being the Constitutional, moral, and right thing to do, would put the courts in the awkward position of either saying that not all persons possess the right to life (which is what they said in regards to slavery in the Dred Scott case which was superseded by the 14th Amendment) or that Texas's definition of a person is not Constitutional even though they have already claimed that it is. We just need legislators (Matthew Krause, Bill Zedler, Jonathan Stickland, Phil King, Stephanie Klick, Kelly Hancock) to have the will and the courage to pass HB 896.

______________________________________________________________________

And I wrote and posted this one last night after watching the Netflix documentary on Ted Bundy:

We live in murderous times. My wife and I watched the new Ted Bundy documentary on Netflix this past weekend, and I had thought about posting a sarcastic comment that the show was about how the State of Florida punished Bundy for exercising his right to choose. While I thought it would get a point across in a few words (people seem to read the shorter posts a lot more often than long ones like this one), I decided it was in bad taste. What Ted Bundy did was evil, monstrous, and repugnant. Killing a child in the womb is also all of those things.

But as I thought more about it, a line from the movie "Unforgiven" wouldn't leave my mind. Clint Eastwood is standing in a field talking to a young kid. They had just killed a man who had a bounty for mutilating a young prostitute, and the young kid was feeling regretful. Clint looks off into the distance and says, "It's a hell of a thing killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever going to have." It is one of my favorite movie lines of all time, and it summed up the theme of "Unforgiven" so succinctly.

Ted Bundy's victims were females, usually around 20 years of age. When he murdered them, he robbed them of all of the years they would have lived after that. Children killed in abortion are robbed of even more. They don't even get the 20 years that the young women did.

A lot cold cases are currently being solved with new technology that is being used to examine DNA evidence. No one really knows how many people Ted Bundy killed, but investigators are pretty sure that many of his victims have never been found. Somewhere out there in the mountains of Washington, Utah, and Colorado, trace evidence of those bodies remains. If they are ever found, their DNA can be extracted from those remains. DNA is a complex signature, proof that a human being, a person, lived on this earth. That unique DNA comes into being at fertilization, that incredible, magical, miraculous union between a sperm and an egg. The remains, the bodies, of children killed in abortion all contain DNA unique to each individual, evidence that that child lived on this earth. He or she existed before an abortionist ripped him or her from the womb.

Those who claim to be "pro-choice" will tell us that those children didn't live at all, that they were just blobs of tissue. They ignore the fact that all other "blobs of tissue" in a woman's body contain that woman's DNA signature. That embryo, fetus, baby has his or her own DNA. The science is irrefutable, which makes what the state of New York did this past week even more repugnant.

Complacency

I must ask forgiveness for my complacency in my defense of the pre-born.  Over the past couple of years, we have seen the abortion president leave office, hundreds of thousands of well-meaning people attending the March for Life each year, and the filing of House Bill 948 in the 2017 session of the Texas Legislature.  It seemed like we were making progress toward ending abortion.

And then, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the State of New York passed the despicable Reproductive Health Act which, among other things, made abortions up to nine months legal.  It also made abortions performed by non-doctors legal (so much for the so-called "safe" abortions touted by those who favor this heinous practice).  So, I am awake now.

I am happy to report that State Representative Tony Tinderholt, who filed House Bill 948 two years ago, has filed House Bill 896 this year.  The text of that bill is here:  https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB00896I.htm  As you will see, this bill gives full personhood status to every human being from fertilization to natural death and removes all exceptions for abortions from the Penal Code.  It also wipes out all of the regulations for abortions, most of which were put into place by supposed pro-life bills.

I am urging everyone who sees legalized abortion for the evil it really is to write your state representative and state senator.  If you don't know who they are, go here to find out:  https://www.house.texas.gov/members/find-your-representative/  I will also be writing both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Texas.

I am writing my state representative today, and below is the letter I am sending.  As you can see, he and I have a history.


Dear Matt:
I am happy to report that as of February 2018 I am a resident of House District 93.  I am also happy to see that you are now in your fourth term in the Texas House of Representatives.  As you will recall, I was one of your earliest campaign volunteers during your unsuccessful effort to win the Republican nomination over Charlie Geren when we both lived in District 99.

I am writing today to ask you to both support and sponsor House Bill 896 as authored by Representative Tony Tinderholt.  Most "pro-life" bills effectively end with some version of "...and then you can kill the baby".  HB896 does not.

You will, of course, notice the language in the bill that states: "Any federal law, executive order, or court decision that purports to supersede, stay, or overrule this Act is in violation of the Texas Constitution and the United States Constitution and is therefore void."  It is bold language in a time when boldness is needed, especially in wake of the passage of New York's despicable "Reproductive Health Act".

Our framers made the process of amending the United States Constitution extremely arduous and difficult.  They wisely saw the danger in making that amendment process easy.  Over the past 46 years, all branches of our federal and state governments have given Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton the effective force of a Constitutional Amendment, a power the United States Supreme Court does not have, nor should it ever.  It is a greatly unjust opinion (not even a law), and as such, needs to be defied.  Yes, openly defying the Federal court system is a grave act, but this isn't some appropriation bill or nice social program or anything applying to the state budget.  This is literally life and death.
I know that in considering this bill legislators might be asking themselves: COULD we really do this?  You instead need to be asking yourself: SHOULD we really do this? When considering the over sixty million dead children over the past 46 years, that answer is an emphatic YES.