Last night, Fox News aired a report on Personhood USA and Personhood Colorado. In the report, someone named Scott Moss of the University of Colorado Law School made the claim that the Personhood amendment on the 2010 Colorado ballot would "be almost certainly completely ineffectual at reigning in abortion because the State can't trump the U.S. Supreme Court." It is unfortunate that most of today's "pro-life" organizations have taken that same attitude, which is why, 37 years after Roe v. Wade, we still have legalized abortion nationwide.
The last time I checked, the judicial branch of government was only one of three supposedly equal branches of government, and yet so many people, like this law professor from Colorado, take the position that anything the court does is somehow above anything that the legislative or executive branches can do. Article 3 of the United States Constitution lists the very limited types of cases in which the Supreme Court is to 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." Congress seems to have abdicated the making of such Regulations since today's Supreme Court seems to have any power it wants. In fact, the power to interpret the Constitution and to determine that any legislation enacted by Congress or by the State legislatures is unconstitutional does not come from the Constitution. The power of the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional came from the Court itself (Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
The specific law that was declared unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade case was Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of the Texas Penal Code. To "procure an abortion" was a crime punishable by up to five years in the penitentiary. The term "abortion" was then given a definition: "the life of the fetus or embryo shall be destroyed in the woman's womb or that a premature birth thereof be caused."
Our Texas legislators need to stand up to the Supreme Court by declaring that children in the womb are persons with full rights. Current law already does this as we have demonstrated in our letter to our state senators. The Court itself said 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 [Fourteenth] Amendment." The Texas Legislature has already established this suggestion of person by law in its definition of individual. Or by establishing this "suggestion of personhood," did the Court, in its arrogance, mean that only IT could establish this suggestion? If so, they forgot to take into account the fact that there are two other branches of government.
Our legislators need to have courage and conviction and do what they know is right, by taking that definition of "individual" already in law and applying the protections of the right to life to everyone who falls under that definition. And we the people MUST hold them accountable for this.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Writing our legislators
I took my letter to Governor Perry from December, changed it just a bit, and am sending out to my state senator tomorrow. I urge other Texans to do the same thing. The Texas Legislature doesn't meet until early 2011, but we need to get our message out to them now. Here is the letter that will go out via U.S. Mail tomorrow...
April 24, 2010
Senator Jane Nelson
PO Box 608
Grapevine, TX 76099
RE: Unconstitutional Texas Law
Dear Senator Nelson:
As a citizen of the great State of Texas, I am writing to you today to express my grave concern about sections of the current Texas Penal Code that are in plain violation of the Constitution of the United States.
According to Tex. Penal Code §1.07, a “Person” “means an individual, corporation, or association." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.38) An "individual" (the term used in the definition of "Person") "means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26)
Chapter 19 of the Texas Penal Code deals with the crimes of criminal homicide. 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."
The definition of individual was put into the Code by the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act, designed to protect pregnant women from violent acts that might result in the harm of their unborn children. This act was an important step in protecting the rights of infants in the womb. Unfortunately, that same act also created Tex. Penal Code §19.06, which states, in part, that:
This chapter [the chapter defining criminal homicide] does not apply to the death of an unborn child 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 with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
After reading these sections of the code, I can only come to the conclusion that unborn children are defined as persons according to the law, and yet Texas law fails to protect the inalienable rights of these persons.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in part, that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." The current Texas code, specifically §19.06, is in clear violation of the last two clauses of Amendment Fourteen as it allows for the deprivation of life without due process of law, and it denies these certain persons "within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Even the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision claimed 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 [Fourteenth] Amendment." As of 2003, Texas law now establishes this suggestion of personhood by statute, so, according to the Roe v. Wade decision, the right to life of unborn children MUST be guaranteed in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Senator Nelson, you swore in your oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State. Your taking of this oath demands that you take immediate and decisive steps to bring Texas law into compliance with the Constitution of the United States and to stop the murder of innocent human life that is taking place in this state.
I have enclosed a template for how this unconstitutionality can be corrected. Tex. Penal Code §19.06, in its current form, must be removed. All statutes specifically keeping abortion a legal medical procedure must also be removed. Since unborn children are now defined, by law, as persons, and since abortion, by definition, kills unborn children, abortion would then be considered homicide.
Senator Nelson, will you have the moral courage to propose such a bill in the next session of the Texas Legislature? As a constituent, I implore you to do so.
Sincerely,
Dan Hawkins
Texas Personhood
Enclosure
I will be enclosing a template bill which can be found here: http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare.html
April 24, 2010
Senator Jane Nelson
PO Box 608
Grapevine, TX 76099
RE: Unconstitutional Texas Law
Dear Senator Nelson:
As a citizen of the great State of Texas, I am writing to you today to express my grave concern about sections of the current Texas Penal Code that are in plain violation of the Constitution of the United States.
According to Tex. Penal Code §1.07, a “Person” “means an individual, corporation, or association." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.38) An "individual" (the term used in the definition of "Person") "means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26)
Chapter 19 of the Texas Penal Code deals with the crimes of criminal homicide. 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."
The definition of individual was put into the Code by the 2003 Prenatal Protection Act, designed to protect pregnant women from violent acts that might result in the harm of their unborn children. This act was an important step in protecting the rights of infants in the womb. Unfortunately, that same act also created Tex. Penal Code §19.06, which states, in part, that:
This chapter [the chapter defining criminal homicide] does not apply to the death of an unborn child 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 with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
After reading these sections of the code, I can only come to the conclusion that unborn children are defined as persons according to the law, and yet Texas law fails to protect the inalienable rights of these persons.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in part, that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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." The current Texas code, specifically §19.06, is in clear violation of the last two clauses of Amendment Fourteen as it allows for the deprivation of life without due process of law, and it denies these certain persons "within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Even the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision claimed 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 [Fourteenth] Amendment." As of 2003, Texas law now establishes this suggestion of personhood by statute, so, according to the Roe v. Wade decision, the right to life of unborn children MUST be guaranteed in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Senator Nelson, you swore in your oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State. Your taking of this oath demands that you take immediate and decisive steps to bring Texas law into compliance with the Constitution of the United States and to stop the murder of innocent human life that is taking place in this state.
I have enclosed a template for how this unconstitutionality can be corrected. Tex. Penal Code §19.06, in its current form, must be removed. All statutes specifically keeping abortion a legal medical procedure must also be removed. Since unborn children are now defined, by law, as persons, and since abortion, by definition, kills unborn children, abortion would then be considered homicide.
Senator Nelson, will you have the moral courage to propose such a bill in the next session of the Texas Legislature? As a constituent, I implore you to do so.
Sincerely,
Dan Hawkins
Texas Personhood
Enclosure
I will be enclosing a template bill which can be found here: http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare.html
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Colorado Ballot
Personhood USA has announced that the petition signatures for the personhood amendment to the state constitution have been certified, and that the amendment will be on the statewide ballot in November. (http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/personhood-certified-colorado-ballot) The amendment reads: "Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."
The amendment process is different in Texas as it first requires action by the state legislature, which only meets 140 days every two years. However, while the amendment process might be more difficult in Texas than in other states, we already have the benefit of the personhood language already in established Texas law. Tex. Penal Code §1.07 states that a “Person” “means an individual, corporation, or association." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.38) An "individual" (the term used in the definition of "Person") "means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26)
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that we all have equal protection under the laws. Even the Roe v. Wade decision proclaimed 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."
From the beginning, the driving force behind this blog has been that Texas laws allowing abortion (and thus excluding children in the womb from equal protection of the laws against homicide) are blatantly unconstitutional. Our letter to Governor Rick Perry spelled this out. We need to pray that the efforts of Personhood USA in Colorado and other states are successful, but we also need to keep demanding that our officials bring Texas law into compliance with the Constitution of the United States and offer to unborn children the same protection of the right to life that we all now have.
The amendment process is different in Texas as it first requires action by the state legislature, which only meets 140 days every two years. However, while the amendment process might be more difficult in Texas than in other states, we already have the benefit of the personhood language already in established Texas law. Tex. Penal Code §1.07 states that a “Person” “means an individual, corporation, or association." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.38) An "individual" (the term used in the definition of "Person") "means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26)
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that we all have equal protection under the laws. Even the Roe v. Wade decision proclaimed 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."
From the beginning, the driving force behind this blog has been that Texas laws allowing abortion (and thus excluding children in the womb from equal protection of the laws against homicide) are blatantly unconstitutional. Our letter to Governor Rick Perry spelled this out. We need to pray that the efforts of Personhood USA in Colorado and other states are successful, but we also need to keep demanding that our officials bring Texas law into compliance with the Constitution of the United States and offer to unborn children the same protection of the right to life that we all now have.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Abortion bill in South Carolina
Here's a story about a bill in the South Carolina Senate that would extend the waiting period between an ultrasound viewing and an abortion from one hour to 24 hours... http://news.sc/2010/03/25/south-carolina-abortion-bill-advances-through-legislature/
I would be in favor of extending that waiting period to forever...
Here is yet another law which ends with “…and then you can kill the baby.” Why don’t we recognize, in law, that a “person” is a human being of any age or stage of development? Abortion would then be classified as murder (which it already is, even if the law doesn’t protect the victims of this form of murder). Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in part, that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.” The dictionary definition of “person” is “a living human"(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 26 Mar. 2010. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person). A brand new, living human being is created at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no doubt that it is alive; if it weren’t, it would not grow and develop. By looking at DNA, there can also be no doubt that this living thing is a human being. It is, therefore, a person, and deserves the full and equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
I would be in favor of extending that waiting period to forever...
Here is yet another law which ends with “…and then you can kill the baby.” Why don’t we recognize, in law, that a “person” is a human being of any age or stage of development? Abortion would then be classified as murder (which it already is, even if the law doesn’t protect the victims of this form of murder). Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, in part, that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.” The dictionary definition of “person” is “a living human"(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 26 Mar. 2010. Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/person). A brand new, living human being is created at the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg. There is no doubt that it is alive; if it weren’t, it would not grow and develop. By looking at DNA, there can also be no doubt that this living thing is a human being. It is, therefore, a person, and deserves the full and equal protection guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Healthcare
I watched some of the "proceedings" on the floor of the House of Representatives yesterday with dismay and disgust. The massive "health care" bill passed by a vote of 219 to 212. Bart Stupak and his coalition of five supposedly pro-life Democrats compromised their principles for a meaningless piece of paper from a pro-abortion president who has shown no interest whatsoever in telling the truth or in keeping campaign promises. Oh yes, Stupak also got almost three quarters of a million dollars for airports in his district from the administration (http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/mi01_stupak/morenews/20100319faagrant.html).
As a result of Stupak's betrayal, the healthcare takeover bill passed by the Senate is now being sent to Obama for him to sign into law. It has been confirmed that this bill does indeed provide for taxpayer funding for abortions, and it will be the law of the land. An executive order cannot supersede a law passed by Congress, so the piece of paper that Stupak got for changing his vote to yes is meaningless.
The solution to this abortion funding is to recognize the inalienable right to life of all human beings from fertilization through natural death. Texas law already recognizes this right as I have shown in previous blog posts. If Rick Perry and our legislature had any real pro-life convictions, they would take steps to eliminate parts of Texas law that make abortion legal. I have provided a blueprint for future legislation for any state official with the courage to present this to the state legislature...
By: S.B. No. XXX
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the protection of the right to life of all persons in the State of Texas.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 19.06, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO MEDICAL PRACTICES. (a) A physician who performs any procedure or dispenses or prescribes any drug, the result of which is the intentional death of any individual, commits an offense.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
SECTION 2. Section 19.07, Penal Code, is added as follows:
Sec. 19.07. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. (a) A mother of an unborn child who takes actions which result in the intentional death of the unborn child commits an offense.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
SECTION 3. Chapter 170, Health and Safety Code, is repealed.
SECTION 4. Chapter 171, Health and Safety Code, is repealed.
SECTION 5. Chapter 33, Texas Family Code, is repealed.
SECTION 6. Section 262.006, Texas Family Code, is repealed.
SECTION 7. The purpose of the Act is to guarantee and protect the inalienable right to life of all individuals in the State of Texas, in accordance with Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, which says that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Texas Penal Code currently 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.” According to that Fourteenth Amendment, all individuals must receive equal protection under the law, especially in regards to the protection of life.
SECTION 8. 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, 2011.
As a result of Stupak's betrayal, the healthcare takeover bill passed by the Senate is now being sent to Obama for him to sign into law. It has been confirmed that this bill does indeed provide for taxpayer funding for abortions, and it will be the law of the land. An executive order cannot supersede a law passed by Congress, so the piece of paper that Stupak got for changing his vote to yes is meaningless.
The solution to this abortion funding is to recognize the inalienable right to life of all human beings from fertilization through natural death. Texas law already recognizes this right as I have shown in previous blog posts. If Rick Perry and our legislature had any real pro-life convictions, they would take steps to eliminate parts of Texas law that make abortion legal. I have provided a blueprint for future legislation for any state official with the courage to present this to the state legislature...
By: S.B. No. XXX
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the protection of the right to life of all persons in the State of Texas.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 19.06, Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO MEDICAL PRACTICES. (a) A physician who performs any procedure or dispenses or prescribes any drug, the result of which is the intentional death of any individual, commits an offense.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
SECTION 2. Section 19.07, Penal Code, is added as follows:
Sec. 19.07. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. (a) A mother of an unborn child who takes actions which result in the intentional death of the unborn child commits an offense.
(b) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
SECTION 3. Chapter 170, Health and Safety Code, is repealed.
SECTION 4. Chapter 171, Health and Safety Code, is repealed.
SECTION 5. Chapter 33, Texas Family Code, is repealed.
SECTION 6. Section 262.006, Texas Family Code, is repealed.
SECTION 7. The purpose of the Act is to guarantee and protect the inalienable right to life of all individuals in the State of Texas, in accordance with Amendment Fourteen of the Constitution of the United States, which says that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Texas Penal Code currently 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.” According to that Fourteenth Amendment, all individuals must receive equal protection under the law, especially in regards to the protection of life.
SECTION 8. 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, 2011.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Planned Parenthood, Abortion Greed
I was perusing the www.liveaction.org blog and saw the following entry: http://liveaction.org/blog/planned-parenthood-1952-abortion-kills-baby/
Planned Parenthood, when promoting their birth control business in 1952, stated that abortion "kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you can't have it."
This is a far cry from their statements of today, now that they have found abortion so lucrative. Not only do they never claim that abortion kills a life, they don't even use the word "baby." And of course, they never claim that an abortion is "dangerous to your life and health." Abortion is a big money business, and Planned Parenthood is the number one profiteer. Is it any wonder that they work so hard to promote promiscuity by advocating "sex education" to even elementary school age children?
Planned Parenthood, when promoting their birth control business in 1952, stated that abortion "kills the life of the baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you can't have it."
This is a far cry from their statements of today, now that they have found abortion so lucrative. Not only do they never claim that abortion kills a life, they don't even use the word "baby." And of course, they never claim that an abortion is "dangerous to your life and health." Abortion is a big money business, and Planned Parenthood is the number one profiteer. Is it any wonder that they work so hard to promote promiscuity by advocating "sex education" to even elementary school age children?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Texas Primaries and Personhood
The Texas Republican Primary election was held yesterday, and the results were disappointing. I took a bit of a break from the blog to go door to door for candidates for both the United States and Texas Houses of Representatives. I also actively supported candidates for Texas Governor and Tarrant County Judge. All four of these preferred candidates were running against incumbent Republicans in the respective offices, and all four of them lost.
One of the purposes of this blog is to educate the public on the personhood pro-life position and show them the moral and constitutional merits of personhood. Last night's election results demonstrate that we still have a long way to go.
My preferred candidate for governor was Debra Medina. Her position has always been that human life starts at conception, period. On the Texas Republican Primary ballot were five non-binding propostions that voters could approve or disapprove. One of these propositions called for the Texas Legislature to "enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion." The state senator who proposed this proposition, who was an ardent supporter of incumbent Governor Rick Perry, made a big deal about Debra Medina's non-support of this measure, saying that she wasn't really a pro-life candidate.
My question to all of our "pro-life" candidates and legislators is this: What is so great about yet another law that basically ends with "...and then you can kill the baby?" We have had 37 years of Roe v. Wade, and where has such legislation gotten us? Three thousand babies a day are still being slaughtered, while the murderers who commit such slaughter keep getting richer. One disgusting organization, Planned Parenthood, masquerades as a "non-profit" group and gets the benefit of our tax dollars on top of the profit they make from killing babies.
It is past time for our government to recognize and protect the right to life of all human beings, from conception through natural death. Roe v. Wade does not grant women the absolute "right" to murder their unborn children at will. Our politicians and lawmakers are giving the Supreme Court way too much power in their handling of the abortion issue. Rather than stand up to the Supreme Court's horrendous decision, they keep enacting laws which ultimately state conditions under which abortionists can kill babies.
Debra Medina has stated emphatically that the right to life of unborn children applied to ALL unborn children. Rick Perry has taken the position that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. I argue that Perry's position gives the pro-abortion movement all the ammunition it needs to keep abortion laws in place. If any unborn child is to be considered a person with an unalienable right to life, then ALL unborn children MUST receive that same consideration. And if all unborn children are persons with the right to life, then the child conceived as the result of an act of rape or incest has as much claim to the right to life as any other.
The state senator who wrote this sonogram ballot propostion is generally considered one of the more "pro-life" people in the Texas Legislature. But if he is so pro-life, why doesn't he propose a bill that would eliminate Texas Penal Code §19.06? The Penal Code already defines a person to be "human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26). Saying that neither the actions of the mother nor the actions of an abortionist acting with the consent of the mother constitute criminal homicide (which Tex. Penal Code §19.06 does indeed say) is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of these unborn children. As a reminder, the 14th Amendment says 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."
And the Roe v. Wade court decision said 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 [Fourteenth] Amendment." Texas law (the aforementioned Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26) now establishes this suggestion of personhood, so, according to the 14th Amendment AND Roe v. Wade, Texas MUST IMMEDIATELY guarantee the right to life of unborn children.
Instead of making laws describing conditions under which an abortion is permissible, why don't we create laws that really protect the unalienable right to life of all persons?
One of the purposes of this blog is to educate the public on the personhood pro-life position and show them the moral and constitutional merits of personhood. Last night's election results demonstrate that we still have a long way to go.
My preferred candidate for governor was Debra Medina. Her position has always been that human life starts at conception, period. On the Texas Republican Primary ballot were five non-binding propostions that voters could approve or disapprove. One of these propositions called for the Texas Legislature to "enact legislation requiring a sonogram to be performed and shown to each mother about to undergo a medically unnecessary, elective abortion." The state senator who proposed this proposition, who was an ardent supporter of incumbent Governor Rick Perry, made a big deal about Debra Medina's non-support of this measure, saying that she wasn't really a pro-life candidate.
My question to all of our "pro-life" candidates and legislators is this: What is so great about yet another law that basically ends with "...and then you can kill the baby?" We have had 37 years of Roe v. Wade, and where has such legislation gotten us? Three thousand babies a day are still being slaughtered, while the murderers who commit such slaughter keep getting richer. One disgusting organization, Planned Parenthood, masquerades as a "non-profit" group and gets the benefit of our tax dollars on top of the profit they make from killing babies.
It is past time for our government to recognize and protect the right to life of all human beings, from conception through natural death. Roe v. Wade does not grant women the absolute "right" to murder their unborn children at will. Our politicians and lawmakers are giving the Supreme Court way too much power in their handling of the abortion issue. Rather than stand up to the Supreme Court's horrendous decision, they keep enacting laws which ultimately state conditions under which abortionists can kill babies.
Debra Medina has stated emphatically that the right to life of unborn children applied to ALL unborn children. Rick Perry has taken the position that abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest. I argue that Perry's position gives the pro-abortion movement all the ammunition it needs to keep abortion laws in place. If any unborn child is to be considered a person with an unalienable right to life, then ALL unborn children MUST receive that same consideration. And if all unborn children are persons with the right to life, then the child conceived as the result of an act of rape or incest has as much claim to the right to life as any other.
The state senator who wrote this sonogram ballot propostion is generally considered one of the more "pro-life" people in the Texas Legislature. But if he is so pro-life, why doesn't he propose a bill that would eliminate Texas Penal Code §19.06? The Penal Code already defines a person to be "human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." (Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26). Saying that neither the actions of the mother nor the actions of an abortionist acting with the consent of the mother constitute criminal homicide (which Tex. Penal Code §19.06 does indeed say) is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment rights of these unborn children. As a reminder, the 14th Amendment says 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."
And the Roe v. Wade court decision said 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 [Fourteenth] Amendment." Texas law (the aforementioned Tex. Penal Code §1.07.26) now establishes this suggestion of personhood, so, according to the 14th Amendment AND Roe v. Wade, Texas MUST IMMEDIATELY guarantee the right to life of unborn children.
Instead of making laws describing conditions under which an abortion is permissible, why don't we create laws that really protect the unalienable right to life of all persons?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)