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.