The Midwest Personhood Conference was a wonderful opportunity to meet with Personhood advocates from other states and to talk about strategy. Personally, I enjoyed meeting prolife leaders like Cal Zastrow, Rebecca Kiessling, Flip Benham, Gualberto Garcia-Jones, and Walter Hoye. Here is PersonhoodUSA co-founder Keith Mason's press release:
Pro-life advocates from ten states including Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin gathered in Wichita, Kansas last Saturday, September 11th for the Midwest Personhood Pro-life Conference.
The event sponsored by Personhood Kansas and Right to Life of Kansas featured representatives Keith Mason and Cal Zastrow from Personhood USA and Johanna Dasteel from the American Life League. Other participants included Gualberto Garcia Jones, Attorney and President of Personhood Colorado; Rev. Walter Hoye, leader of the California Human Rights Amendment Initiative Drive; Rebecca Kiessling, Attorney and International Pro-life Speaker; and the Rev. Flip Benham, National Director of Operation Save America.
The theme of the conference was answering the distortions and legal objections to personhood measures and focusing on the strategic significance of the movement in ending abortion.
Attendees from Colorado were pleased to report on their successful efforts to place a constitutional amendment on the November, 2010 ballot. Amendment 62 would define the word "person" to include all human beings from their biological beginnings.
More than a dozen in attendance traveled from the great state of Oklahoma. They utilized the opportunity to network with national personhood leaders and are excited to report that they will be launching a personhood initiative drive soon.
"We're grateful for the wonderful personhood leaders in attendance who were able to share both their legal expertise and their experience in working on successful personhood campaigns. The conference bore much fruit, and we go forth with a renewed spirit to pursue personhood measures, protect the preborn, and end the institution of abortion throughout the nation," said Keith Ashley of Personhood Kansas.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Mid-west Personhood Conference
The Midwest Personhood Conference is this Saturday, September 11 in Wichita, KS. I'll be attending, and I would love to hear from any other Texans making the trip. Just drop me a note at danielh41@yahoo.com.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Liberal "Rights"
I usually try to keep this blog limited to issues dealing with abortion and personhood, but most people who support prolife issues are also in opposition to same sex marriage. Some of the arguments made against the ruling in Federal District Court striking down Proposition 8, California's constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, might conflict with those made on behalf of the right to life of unborn children. Because of this, I am posting this, although I do so with some hesitation.
I agree that the ruling in this case is terrible. However, many of the arguments that I have heard in opposition to this ruling are not very well thought out. It is a fact that a majority of California voters approved this amendment, and it is also a fact that one solitary judge has overruled this majority. But these facts cannot be turned into the sole argument used against the ruling, that it was wrong for one judge to overrule a majority of voters like this. In fact, I would discard this argument altogether.
In a Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences survey from May 2010 (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm), only 15% of respondents answered that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. 44% stated that abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances, such as in cases of rape or incest. 37% said that abortions should be legal and available in any circumstance. According to the Declaration of Independence, the right to life of all human beings comes from our Creator and is inalienable. It is not granted by the government and cannot be taken by the government. And, as the Declaration of Independence describes, government has been instituted among men to ensure that right. The fact that only 15% answered the survey in support of this ideal in no way means that the government should continue to allow abortions. Our country is not a pure democracy. If it were, fifty-one percent of the people could vote to enslave the other forty-nine percent. This is why opinion polls on abortion matter little to me. Legalized abortion is wrong. It is the denial of one of the most basic of rights, the right to life, to an entire class of human beings, and I will continue to fight for the protection of this right, no matter what polls say.
I realize that proponents of gay marriage are making a similar argument to the one I just made, that a majority of people cannot and should not vote to deny the rights of the minority. The flaw in their argument centers around their idea of "rights," a word that has been thrown around a lot lately. Everyone wants “equal rights” or “civil rights” or a “right to marry whomever.” But what constitutes a right in this country?
I return to that founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. It says that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are pretty self explanatory. Now that I have come into being, I have the right to continue being, the right to remain alive. That requires no obligation from anyone else. I have the right to liberty. I can go where I want, think what I want, say what I want. That also requires no obligation on the part of anyone else. And I have the right to pursue happiness. I don’t have a right to be happy, only to pursue being happy. Once again, this places no obligation on anyone else.
Our country’s other great document, the Constitution, contains the Bill of Rights. I’ve always viewed these as restrictions on government in support of those basic rights described in the Declaration. The government can’t limit what I write or what I say; it can’t prevent me from holding whatever religious beliefs I happen to hold; it can’t prevent me from bearing arms; it can’t search my home without warrant or probable cause to believe I have committed some crime, etc.
Liberals in government today are trying to inflict a whole bevy of “rights” on the people. They say everyone has a “right to healthcare,” a “right to own a home,” a “right to marry whomever they chose,” etc., etc. These are not rights. I do not have a “right to healthcare.” Is there someone obligated by the government to give me healthcare? What about that person’s right to liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.? People do not have a right to own a home. The recent failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be indicators that some people should not be given mortgages. And yet, the government tried to obligate banks and mortgage companies into giving these bad loans. I saw a picture on Drudge Report yesterday of a young woman sitting dejectedly on a curb holding a sign which read, “A job is a right.”
I want to say to her, “No, a job is not a right. No one is obligated to give you a job. If you want a job, go out and make yourself marketable.”
And now liberals want to make marriage a right. No one has a “right” to get married. We do all have a right to pursue happiness, and this would include the choice of a life partner (if, of course, that life partner is willing). I found a woman who wanted to spend the rest of her life with me. The feeling was mutual. The two of us hold the same religious beliefs. We formed a union based on those beliefs (i.e., we were married by a Southern Baptist preacher). We did get a marriage license, and we did go register it with the county clerk, according to the law at that time, more because it is expected of us by those around us than because of anything else. Legally, we didn’t have to register with the State, and only because of current law does the State recognize the marriage. The marriage agreement was between my wife and me in accordance with our beliefs. Our marriage is recognized by the State and by other public entities, like our employers, our church, our doctors, etc. They are under no obligation to recognize the marriage other than their own policies and practices.
Throughout the history of this country, marriage has generally been defined as the union of one man and one woman. For this reason, marriages between men and women are recognized by all kinds of entities, both public and private. What proponents of same sex marriage want is to obligate those same entities to recognize “marriages” between persons of the same sex. The issue isn’t about allowing homosexuals to “marry.” They can already do that. This is about forcing local governments, private companies, and public institutions to recognize these marriages when, in reality, these entities were never forced to recognize heterosexual marriage.
The Bible is one of the oldest written documents in the history of the human species. I happen to believe that it is a gift from God and that it is His Word to us. Millions of other people believe the same thing. According to the Bible, acts of homosexuality are sins (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27). Thanks to the relentless public relations campaign of those who tout this same sex marriage agenda, those of us who hold this belief are increasingly viewed as intolerant or hateful. This judge’s ruling, that we all have to recognize “marriages” of people of the same sex, will almost criminalize a belief in the Bible.
For example, the State of Massachusetts is one of the few that now recognizes same sex marriage. They also have a plethora of “anti-discrimination” laws on the books. The Catholic Church had been running an adoption service in the State, and, to comply with these anti-discrimination laws, Massachusetts ordered them to place adoptive children in homes with parents of the same sex. This, of course, goes against the beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, but, since these “marriages” were now recognized by the State, they were forced to treat them the same as heterosexual couples. Rather than fight a long and costly court battle, the Church decided to cease adoptions in Massachusetts (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906).
The main reason for this post is not simply to argue about how wrong same sex marriage is but to demonstrate the need for care in making those arguments. We cannot contradict what we have said on behalf of our unborn children.
I agree that the ruling in this case is terrible. However, many of the arguments that I have heard in opposition to this ruling are not very well thought out. It is a fact that a majority of California voters approved this amendment, and it is also a fact that one solitary judge has overruled this majority. But these facts cannot be turned into the sole argument used against the ruling, that it was wrong for one judge to overrule a majority of voters like this. In fact, I would discard this argument altogether.
In a Virginia Commonwealth University Life Sciences survey from May 2010 (http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm), only 15% of respondents answered that abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. 44% stated that abortion should be legal only in certain circumstances, such as in cases of rape or incest. 37% said that abortions should be legal and available in any circumstance. According to the Declaration of Independence, the right to life of all human beings comes from our Creator and is inalienable. It is not granted by the government and cannot be taken by the government. And, as the Declaration of Independence describes, government has been instituted among men to ensure that right. The fact that only 15% answered the survey in support of this ideal in no way means that the government should continue to allow abortions. Our country is not a pure democracy. If it were, fifty-one percent of the people could vote to enslave the other forty-nine percent. This is why opinion polls on abortion matter little to me. Legalized abortion is wrong. It is the denial of one of the most basic of rights, the right to life, to an entire class of human beings, and I will continue to fight for the protection of this right, no matter what polls say.
I realize that proponents of gay marriage are making a similar argument to the one I just made, that a majority of people cannot and should not vote to deny the rights of the minority. The flaw in their argument centers around their idea of "rights," a word that has been thrown around a lot lately. Everyone wants “equal rights” or “civil rights” or a “right to marry whomever.” But what constitutes a right in this country?
I return to that founding document of our nation, the Declaration of Independence. It says that we are all endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are pretty self explanatory. Now that I have come into being, I have the right to continue being, the right to remain alive. That requires no obligation from anyone else. I have the right to liberty. I can go where I want, think what I want, say what I want. That also requires no obligation on the part of anyone else. And I have the right to pursue happiness. I don’t have a right to be happy, only to pursue being happy. Once again, this places no obligation on anyone else.
Our country’s other great document, the Constitution, contains the Bill of Rights. I’ve always viewed these as restrictions on government in support of those basic rights described in the Declaration. The government can’t limit what I write or what I say; it can’t prevent me from holding whatever religious beliefs I happen to hold; it can’t prevent me from bearing arms; it can’t search my home without warrant or probable cause to believe I have committed some crime, etc.
Liberals in government today are trying to inflict a whole bevy of “rights” on the people. They say everyone has a “right to healthcare,” a “right to own a home,” a “right to marry whomever they chose,” etc., etc. These are not rights. I do not have a “right to healthcare.” Is there someone obligated by the government to give me healthcare? What about that person’s right to liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.? People do not have a right to own a home. The recent failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be indicators that some people should not be given mortgages. And yet, the government tried to obligate banks and mortgage companies into giving these bad loans. I saw a picture on Drudge Report yesterday of a young woman sitting dejectedly on a curb holding a sign which read, “A job is a right.”
I want to say to her, “No, a job is not a right. No one is obligated to give you a job. If you want a job, go out and make yourself marketable.”
And now liberals want to make marriage a right. No one has a “right” to get married. We do all have a right to pursue happiness, and this would include the choice of a life partner (if, of course, that life partner is willing). I found a woman who wanted to spend the rest of her life with me. The feeling was mutual. The two of us hold the same religious beliefs. We formed a union based on those beliefs (i.e., we were married by a Southern Baptist preacher). We did get a marriage license, and we did go register it with the county clerk, according to the law at that time, more because it is expected of us by those around us than because of anything else. Legally, we didn’t have to register with the State, and only because of current law does the State recognize the marriage. The marriage agreement was between my wife and me in accordance with our beliefs. Our marriage is recognized by the State and by other public entities, like our employers, our church, our doctors, etc. They are under no obligation to recognize the marriage other than their own policies and practices.
Throughout the history of this country, marriage has generally been defined as the union of one man and one woman. For this reason, marriages between men and women are recognized by all kinds of entities, both public and private. What proponents of same sex marriage want is to obligate those same entities to recognize “marriages” between persons of the same sex. The issue isn’t about allowing homosexuals to “marry.” They can already do that. This is about forcing local governments, private companies, and public institutions to recognize these marriages when, in reality, these entities were never forced to recognize heterosexual marriage.
The Bible is one of the oldest written documents in the history of the human species. I happen to believe that it is a gift from God and that it is His Word to us. Millions of other people believe the same thing. According to the Bible, acts of homosexuality are sins (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27). Thanks to the relentless public relations campaign of those who tout this same sex marriage agenda, those of us who hold this belief are increasingly viewed as intolerant or hateful. This judge’s ruling, that we all have to recognize “marriages” of people of the same sex, will almost criminalize a belief in the Bible.
For example, the State of Massachusetts is one of the few that now recognizes same sex marriage. They also have a plethora of “anti-discrimination” laws on the books. The Catholic Church had been running an adoption service in the State, and, to comply with these anti-discrimination laws, Massachusetts ordered them to place adoptive children in homes with parents of the same sex. This, of course, goes against the beliefs of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, but, since these “marriages” were now recognized by the State, they were forced to treat them the same as heterosexual couples. Rather than fight a long and costly court battle, the Church decided to cease adoptions in Massachusetts (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=42906).
The main reason for this post is not simply to argue about how wrong same sex marriage is but to demonstrate the need for care in making those arguments. We cannot contradict what we have said on behalf of our unborn children.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A Personal Story
I spend a lot of time on this blog criticizing our elected officials for inaction on right to life issues and for giving the Roe v. Wade court decision the effective force of a Constitutional amendment (which it does not have) as well as railing against the abortion providers who have become expert at deceiving so many scared and confused young women.
For the past three months, it has been my honor to serve in the nursery every Sunday morning at my church. I'm the director for a room caring for babies who are roughly 6 to 12 months old (although some of them have passed the 12-month mark in the past couple of weeks--they grow so fast!). The mom of one of these precious babies posted the story of her own abortion experience, and she has graciously given me permission to pass it on. I hope all who read it are blessed by it: http://theadventuresofbabyboymartin.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-story.html?spref=fb
For the past three months, it has been my honor to serve in the nursery every Sunday morning at my church. I'm the director for a room caring for babies who are roughly 6 to 12 months old (although some of them have passed the 12-month mark in the past couple of weeks--they grow so fast!). The mom of one of these precious babies posted the story of her own abortion experience, and she has graciously given me permission to pass it on. I hope all who read it are blessed by it: http://theadventuresofbabyboymartin.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-story.html?spref=fb
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Rape and Incest
I was listening to Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" radio show on my way to work this morning. Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel was the guest, and Bill asked her about her pro-life stance. She gave a pretty standard "pro-life" answer, stating that abortions should generally be prohibited but that exceptions should be allowed for cases of rape or incest. I also found a blog post on her campaign website, where she says, "And while I will not seek to prohibit abortions in the extremely rare cases of rape, incest, or where there is a real threat to the life of the mother, I will do everything in my power to encourage and promote alternatives to abortion in these tragic situations."
This kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) is what is wrong in the pro-life movement today. If someone takes the position that human life begins at conception, then that someone must regard each and every abortion as the murder of a human person. If any single preborn child is to be considered a living human being, then ALL preborn children must be considered living human beings, without regard to the circumstances of that child's conception. Allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest is tantamount to saying that children in the womb are not living persons and can be killed at will, that we merely want to outlaw abortions in general in order to punish women for their sexual practices and enforce our moral views but that women who get pregnant through no fault of their own, as in cases of rape or incest, should be able to end their pregancies if they want to. On a purely logical basis, that position is indefensible. If unborn children are human beings and if each abortion kills an unborn child, then each and every abortion must be regarded as the murder of a human being and should be treated accordingly by our legal system. Those on the pro-abortion side know that the whole "exceptions for rape and incest" position does grave harm to the pro-life position; this is why they keep bringing up the rape and incest issue in public discourse.
I have to return to Footnote 54 of the Roe v. Wade decision:
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?
As much as I hate to agree with anything in such a horrible and disastrous court opinion, the court's logic in this section is sound. If we are pro-life because we believe that unborn children are living human beings with the God-given right to life, then we must demand that our government protect that right to life for ALL unborn children just as we demand that it protect the right to life of all persons already born. This is the goal of Texas Personhood and other advocates of personhood legislation.
This kind of thinking (or lack of thinking) is what is wrong in the pro-life movement today. If someone takes the position that human life begins at conception, then that someone must regard each and every abortion as the murder of a human person. If any single preborn child is to be considered a living human being, then ALL preborn children must be considered living human beings, without regard to the circumstances of that child's conception. Allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest is tantamount to saying that children in the womb are not living persons and can be killed at will, that we merely want to outlaw abortions in general in order to punish women for their sexual practices and enforce our moral views but that women who get pregnant through no fault of their own, as in cases of rape or incest, should be able to end their pregancies if they want to. On a purely logical basis, that position is indefensible. If unborn children are human beings and if each abortion kills an unborn child, then each and every abortion must be regarded as the murder of a human being and should be treated accordingly by our legal system. Those on the pro-abortion side know that the whole "exceptions for rape and incest" position does grave harm to the pro-life position; this is why they keep bringing up the rape and incest issue in public discourse.
I have to return to Footnote 54 of the Roe v. Wade decision:
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?
As much as I hate to agree with anything in such a horrible and disastrous court opinion, the court's logic in this section is sound. If we are pro-life because we believe that unborn children are living human beings with the God-given right to life, then we must demand that our government protect that right to life for ALL unborn children just as we demand that it protect the right to life of all persons already born. This is the goal of Texas Personhood and other advocates of personhood legislation.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Debate on Personhood
The executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, Joe Pojman, and I got into another debate as the result of a Facebook post. Here is the entire thread (to this point)...
Joe Pojman "Once again the legal personhood of the unborn child has been upheld in Texas so that our legislature can protect mothers and unborn babies from violent crimes," says Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. "Although the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion forbids Texas from protecting unborn children from abortion, we believe the Prenatal Protection Act creates a foothold for someday overturning Roe."
http://www.lifenews.com/state5220.html
Lauro Antonio Garza Well Done! God bless you!
Dan Hawkins The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion forbids Texas from protecting unborn children from abortion only because we the people let it. When are we going to start insisting that our leaders stand against tyranny and injustice and for the inalienable right to life of ALL human beings? http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/footnote-54.html
Joe Pojman Dan, much as we want the Texas Legislature to provide legal protection for innocent unborn babies from the tragedy of abortion, the Legislature cannot because the US Supreme Court ties the hands of the Legislature and the Governor.
Check out pp. 2-3 of the article by noted pro-life legal scholar Paul Linton:
"More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court, in a case involving the enforcement of the school-desegregation cases, stated that the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution is 'the supreme law of the land,' which is of binding effect on the states by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, art. VI, cl. 2."
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2009_fall/Linton.pdf
Dan Hawkins So what you and Linton are saying is that we should just accept that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land because the Supreme Court says it is? I reject that, and our state leaders need to reject that as well. Thomas Jefferson, who I think carries much more intellectual weight than Paul Linton, once said that the Constitution is a compact between the states and 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."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
Joe Pojman With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, here's an interesting historical perspective: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/commentary-states-cant-nullify-federal-law-217250.html. States may not unilaterally reject Supreme Court rulings. Like it or not, that's just not the way our United States are set up under the Constitution.
Dan Hawkins Well, I don't know who this Sanford Levinson is (the author of the American Statesman article), but given some of the opinions he expresses in the article, I just can't put much stock in what he says. For instance, he states, "I am quite bitterly critical of a number of defects in the Constitution and support a constitutional convention to correct them, but that does not change the fact, for example, that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the Senate as does California, or Vermont the same number of votes as does Texas." He completely misses the point about why Congress was split into two Houses in the Great Compromise. One House is supposed to represent the people, and that representation is based on population, etc. The other house (the Senate) is supposed to give equal representation to the States. The only constitutional defect in this arrangement is the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which mandated direct election of the Senators by the people of the states (thus removing any say the State governments had in the federal government, and thus making the issue of nullification and the 10th Amendment even more important).
And not only that, but the article is about nullification of Federal law, and Roe v. Wade is not a law. It is a court opinion. The judicial branch, by definition, cannot make law. If you read my blog post at http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/footnote-54.html, you will see that what I am proposing is legislation based on arguments made in Roe V. Wade that will both protect the right to life of all human beings and adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court has seized far too much power for itself, by declaring itself and its interpretation of the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land," and the other branches of government, both federal and state, have just stood by and allowed it. When you actually look at the Constitution, the Supreme Court doesn't even have authority over its own jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2 states that "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."). Unfortunately, I haven't seen Congress making any exceptions or regulations on the Supreme Court lately because they have abdicated so much power to them.
This attitude that decisions of the Supreme Corut have the effective force of a Constitutional amendment is what is wrong with so many things in our country and especially the pro-life movement. It is past time for someone in government, be it Congress, a state legislature, a governor, someone, to step up and take a stand against the Court for what is right and just. There is nothing more right and just than the abolition of legalized abortion and the protection of the right to life of preborn children.
Cathy Fountain Kerr "The Court noted that Roe v. Wade permits states to criminalize the homicide of an unborn child SO LONG AS THE LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE MOTHER'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY."
Let me get this straight: a person can be prosecuted if he commits murder on an unborn child, BUT the mother can do the same thing with no penalty at all. This is such bad law that it defies credibility! You cannot have it both ways (and I fully understand what I am saying here).
When, oh when, will this finallly be brought back into the light of day and exposed for the evil that it is?
Rick Ellis This is a farce, and no prolife law at all. Any law that ends with "then you can kill the baby" is not prolife.
This issue ends or fails at personhood.
to demand anything less than full personhood for the womb child is doomed.
Joe Pojman The Texas Prenatal Protection Act recognizes the personhood of the unborn child and allows the conviction and punishment of violent crimes against unborn children. That is a very good law. Texas has a moral obligation to protect as many unborn babies as we can while educating the public about the humanity of the unborn child, and we have done so. Many criminals are now behind bars for killing unborn babies, and the public learns about the personhood of unborn babies when they read about the convictions in the press.
The obstacle to protecting unborn from abortion is that Roe v. Wade -- among the very worst decisions by the US Supreme Court -- interprets the US Constitution in a way that prevents the Prenatal Protect Act from being applied in cases of abortion. That is the terrible inconsistancy of Roe. The majority of the Supreme Court does not care about the personhood of the unborn child. The majority only cares about garanteeing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, even though that means terminating an unborn child who is a clearly a legal person.
People need to know about the ruthless extremism of Roe.
How do we fix it? Simple. Replace pro-abortion justices wtih pro-life nominees. How do we do that? Replace Obama with a pro-life president in two years and vote in enough US Senators to approve the nominees.
Rick Ellis You are dead wrong Mr. Pojman, as pro-life has been for far to long. A simple act of congress over turns Roe, and puts the court back between the 4 corners of the constitution. Any law that says you get to kill babies, is not Prolife. Duncan Hunter has introduced it several times, but it was not allowed out of comity.
You are spreading mis information that is deadly to womb children.
for some one who brags about their education, you sure don't seem to know much.
Dan Hawkins Dr. Pojman, with all due respect, the status quo has been in effect for 37 years, and it isn't working. You say that fixing Roe v. Wade is easy: we just have to elect a pro-life President who would then nominate pro-life Supreme Court justices. But it isn't that simple. We've already had 8 years of Ronald Reagan and another 8 years of George W. Bush. Before Obama took office, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices had been nominated by Republican Presidents. And yet Roe v. Wade is still firmly entrenched in the minds of government officials and inteligentsia as having the force of a constitutional amendment.
It can take years for a case to reach the Supreme Court, and meanwhile, the make up of the Court is always changing. We cannot simply wait for a more favorable Court to come into being and then try challenging Roe v. Wade with another court case. Said court case may not even make it to the Court. And in the meantime, how many more babies will be slaughtered while we take this wait and see approach?
Abolitionists in the 1850s did not sit around saying, "Well, we need to get the Dred Scot decision overturned." No, they were very pro-active. They advocated the use of state nullification against federal fugitive slave laws; they pushed for legislation that would free the slaves. And after the southern states seceeded from the Union, the top abolitionist of his day issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
What I am proposing is that our state legislature enact laws which fully recognize that life -- HUMAN life -- begins at the moment that sperm merges with that egg. This new legislation should recognize that the term "person" applies to all human beings from fertilization to natural death. The Prenatal Protection Act of 2003 was a good start, but it left a glaring uncontitutionality in the Texas Penal Code. It said that preborn babies are persons but that expectant mothers and their abortionists could murder these persons at will. The bill I am suggesting would both correct this unconstitutionality and provide full protection of the right to life of all human beings. It would shut down every abortuary in the state. And when NARAL and Planned Parenthood challenge the new law in court, our state should vigorously defend it to the bitter end.
You are for maintaining the status quo even though the status quo has resulted in the slaughter of 50 million children over the past 37 years. That's wrong. Those of us who advocate personhood laws cannot and will not accept this. How many more children will be slaughtered while pro-life organizations cringe in fear of this massive federal government and its seemingly all-powerful Supreme Court?
You say that this abdication of power to the Supreme Court is just the way it is (and you link me to articles written by people with silly ideas like calling for a new constitutional convention when what we really need is a federal government that only operates within the constraints of our present Constitution). I am glad that people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and others did not simply say, "Well, that's just the way it is..."
Joe Pojman "Once again the legal personhood of the unborn child has been upheld in Texas so that our legislature can protect mothers and unborn babies from violent crimes," says Joe Pojman, Ph.D., executive director of Texas Alliance for Life. "Although the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion forbids Texas from protecting unborn children from abortion, we believe the Prenatal Protection Act creates a foothold for someday overturning Roe."
http://www.lifenews.com/state5220.html
Lauro Antonio Garza Well Done! God bless you!
Dan Hawkins The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion forbids Texas from protecting unborn children from abortion only because we the people let it. When are we going to start insisting that our leaders stand against tyranny and injustice and for the inalienable right to life of ALL human beings? http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/footnote-54.html
Joe Pojman Dan, much as we want the Texas Legislature to provide legal protection for innocent unborn babies from the tragedy of abortion, the Legislature cannot because the US Supreme Court ties the hands of the Legislature and the Governor.
Check out pp. 2-3 of the article by noted pro-life legal scholar Paul Linton:
"More than 50 years ago, the Supreme Court, in a case involving the enforcement of the school-desegregation cases, stated that the Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution is 'the supreme law of the land,' which is of binding effect on the states by virtue of the Supremacy Clause, art. VI, cl. 2."
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2009_fall/Linton.pdf
Dan Hawkins So what you and Linton are saying is that we should just accept that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the supreme law of the land because the Supreme Court says it is? I reject that, and our state leaders need to reject that as well. Thomas Jefferson, who I think carries much more intellectual weight than Paul Linton, once said that the Constitution is a compact between the states and 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."
http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm
Joe Pojman With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, here's an interesting historical perspective: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/insight/commentary-states-cant-nullify-federal-law-217250.html. States may not unilaterally reject Supreme Court rulings. Like it or not, that's just not the way our United States are set up under the Constitution.
Dan Hawkins Well, I don't know who this Sanford Levinson is (the author of the American Statesman article), but given some of the opinions he expresses in the article, I just can't put much stock in what he says. For instance, he states, "I am quite bitterly critical of a number of defects in the Constitution and support a constitutional convention to correct them, but that does not change the fact, for example, that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the Senate as does California, or Vermont the same number of votes as does Texas." He completely misses the point about why Congress was split into two Houses in the Great Compromise. One House is supposed to represent the people, and that representation is based on population, etc. The other house (the Senate) is supposed to give equal representation to the States. The only constitutional defect in this arrangement is the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, which mandated direct election of the Senators by the people of the states (thus removing any say the State governments had in the federal government, and thus making the issue of nullification and the 10th Amendment even more important).
And not only that, but the article is about nullification of Federal law, and Roe v. Wade is not a law. It is a court opinion. The judicial branch, by definition, cannot make law. If you read my blog post at http://texaspersonhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/footnote-54.html, you will see that what I am proposing is legislation based on arguments made in Roe V. Wade that will both protect the right to life of all human beings and adhere to the Constitution of the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court has seized far too much power for itself, by declaring itself and its interpretation of the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land," and the other branches of government, both federal and state, have just stood by and allowed it. When you actually look at the Constitution, the Supreme Court doesn't even have authority over its own jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2 states that "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."). Unfortunately, I haven't seen Congress making any exceptions or regulations on the Supreme Court lately because they have abdicated so much power to them.
This attitude that decisions of the Supreme Corut have the effective force of a Constitutional amendment is what is wrong with so many things in our country and especially the pro-life movement. It is past time for someone in government, be it Congress, a state legislature, a governor, someone, to step up and take a stand against the Court for what is right and just. There is nothing more right and just than the abolition of legalized abortion and the protection of the right to life of preborn children.
Cathy Fountain Kerr "The Court noted that Roe v. Wade permits states to criminalize the homicide of an unborn child SO LONG AS THE LAW DOES NOT RESTRICT THE MOTHER'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY."
Let me get this straight: a person can be prosecuted if he commits murder on an unborn child, BUT the mother can do the same thing with no penalty at all. This is such bad law that it defies credibility! You cannot have it both ways (and I fully understand what I am saying here).
When, oh when, will this finallly be brought back into the light of day and exposed for the evil that it is?
Rick Ellis This is a farce, and no prolife law at all. Any law that ends with "then you can kill the baby" is not prolife.
This issue ends or fails at personhood.
to demand anything less than full personhood for the womb child is doomed.
Joe Pojman The Texas Prenatal Protection Act recognizes the personhood of the unborn child and allows the conviction and punishment of violent crimes against unborn children. That is a very good law. Texas has a moral obligation to protect as many unborn babies as we can while educating the public about the humanity of the unborn child, and we have done so. Many criminals are now behind bars for killing unborn babies, and the public learns about the personhood of unborn babies when they read about the convictions in the press.
The obstacle to protecting unborn from abortion is that Roe v. Wade -- among the very worst decisions by the US Supreme Court -- interprets the US Constitution in a way that prevents the Prenatal Protect Act from being applied in cases of abortion. That is the terrible inconsistancy of Roe. The majority of the Supreme Court does not care about the personhood of the unborn child. The majority only cares about garanteeing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, even though that means terminating an unborn child who is a clearly a legal person.
People need to know about the ruthless extremism of Roe.
How do we fix it? Simple. Replace pro-abortion justices wtih pro-life nominees. How do we do that? Replace Obama with a pro-life president in two years and vote in enough US Senators to approve the nominees.
Rick Ellis You are dead wrong Mr. Pojman, as pro-life has been for far to long. A simple act of congress over turns Roe, and puts the court back between the 4 corners of the constitution. Any law that says you get to kill babies, is not Prolife. Duncan Hunter has introduced it several times, but it was not allowed out of comity.
You are spreading mis information that is deadly to womb children.
for some one who brags about their education, you sure don't seem to know much.
Dan Hawkins Dr. Pojman, with all due respect, the status quo has been in effect for 37 years, and it isn't working. You say that fixing Roe v. Wade is easy: we just have to elect a pro-life President who would then nominate pro-life Supreme Court justices. But it isn't that simple. We've already had 8 years of Ronald Reagan and another 8 years of George W. Bush. Before Obama took office, 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices had been nominated by Republican Presidents. And yet Roe v. Wade is still firmly entrenched in the minds of government officials and inteligentsia as having the force of a constitutional amendment.
It can take years for a case to reach the Supreme Court, and meanwhile, the make up of the Court is always changing. We cannot simply wait for a more favorable Court to come into being and then try challenging Roe v. Wade with another court case. Said court case may not even make it to the Court. And in the meantime, how many more babies will be slaughtered while we take this wait and see approach?
Abolitionists in the 1850s did not sit around saying, "Well, we need to get the Dred Scot decision overturned." No, they were very pro-active. They advocated the use of state nullification against federal fugitive slave laws; they pushed for legislation that would free the slaves. And after the southern states seceeded from the Union, the top abolitionist of his day issued the Emancipation Proclamation.
What I am proposing is that our state legislature enact laws which fully recognize that life -- HUMAN life -- begins at the moment that sperm merges with that egg. This new legislation should recognize that the term "person" applies to all human beings from fertilization to natural death. The Prenatal Protection Act of 2003 was a good start, but it left a glaring uncontitutionality in the Texas Penal Code. It said that preborn babies are persons but that expectant mothers and their abortionists could murder these persons at will. The bill I am suggesting would both correct this unconstitutionality and provide full protection of the right to life of all human beings. It would shut down every abortuary in the state. And when NARAL and Planned Parenthood challenge the new law in court, our state should vigorously defend it to the bitter end.
You are for maintaining the status quo even though the status quo has resulted in the slaughter of 50 million children over the past 37 years. That's wrong. Those of us who advocate personhood laws cannot and will not accept this. How many more children will be slaughtered while pro-life organizations cringe in fear of this massive federal government and its seemingly all-powerful Supreme Court?
You say that this abdication of power to the Supreme Court is just the way it is (and you link me to articles written by people with silly ideas like calling for a new constitutional convention when what we really need is a federal government that only operates within the constraints of our present Constitution). I am glad that people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and others did not simply say, "Well, that's just the way it is..."
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)