Posted on 07/11/2013 6:27:21 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
EqualProtectionforPosterity.com
United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called 'twenty week' or "fetal pain" abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.
Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a "law" were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot "feel pain"?
Would a "law" that gave "legal" permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?
Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.
The Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
The Fourteenth Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God's image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not "pain," not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.
America's founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation's charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d'etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.
The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.
If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you're not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.
If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.
The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.
"Don't worrry they won't feel a thing" is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It's wrong.
Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the "fetus," or child, is a person, "of course" they are protected by our Constitution's explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, "legal" permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.
One last thing:
Since "laws" such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever."
"This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
-- Samuel Adams
"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
-- Alexander Hamilton
Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.
Very sincerely,
Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America's Party
www.equalprotectionforposterity.com
tomhoefling@gmail.com
Well, brace yourself. Because us “purists” have barely gotten started.
Your way is a proven failure, morally, constitutionally and legally.
You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. As long as Roe is hanging over state legislatures, they can only pass restrictions such as this.
A sidewalk counselor sees three pregnant women walking towards the abortion facility doors. Which one does she talk to?
Is it “immoral” if she does not attempt to talk to all three at the same time?
Actually, there is another way, one that will actually be morally sound, and is sure to work:
Demand that our elected officials keep the first obligation of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the supreme right of every person in this country.
I would rather that there be 50 state laws rather than one national law regarding abortion. To that end, I disagree with Sen. Cruz here. Once Federal laws are passed, they have a tendency to be cemented in stone and part of the tragedy of Roe v Wade was that nine justices usurped the will of the states.
But it should be noted that even Roe v Wade recognized a difference between early-term abortion and late-term abortion saying they might approve restrictions on late-term abortions and that is what these current bills are all about.
I would, however, approve of federal legislation that forces abortion providers to be held to the same standards of any facility that does invasive surgery. For way too long, these “clinics” have received a free ride to perform abortions in filthy and unhealthy surroundings without the sort of standards for cleanliness and equipment sterility that one would expect for this type of surgery.
By not codifying federal law on when an abortion can be performed or denied, I think it makes it easier for Roe v. Wade to be eventually overturned and returned to the states which is the ultimate goal. Like Obamacare, the more you amend it, the harder it becomes to scrap the whole thing.
In your world where you pretend Roe doesn't exist.
Tell the courts to go to hell. If they issue opinions that are obviously contrary to the Constitution, their decisions are null and void.
Why are folks on our side so damndumb?
We refuse to take ANY steps in the direction of our goal because we can’t get there in one step?
Remember: If you’re ever in a burning building with 3 kids, but can only reach 2 of them, leave ‘em all behind.
/sarc
1st Degree Murder
2nd Degree Murder
Manslaughter
All the victims were equally human.
You fail at logic, you fail at history, you fail at strategy.
Incrementalism is how the left has gotten us where we are.
Proven failure? Hardly.
It doesn't, because I'm not a judicial supremacist. Our elected officials swear to support and defend the Constitution, not the immoral, arbitrary, unconstitutional opinions of some other officer of government.
Incrementalism works for evil. But you can’t do good that way. You either do right, or you don’t.
Premeditated murder is premeditated murder, no matter how much you would like to cloud the issue.
Wrong!
It was stupid purists like you that made abortion a big business.
I have seen your types on the same side as Abortionist George Tiller, frequently.
Wichita was the abortion capital of the United States because of idiot purists like YOU. New York and California had stricter abortion laws than Kansas, until the “purists” were outed as ALLIES of the abortion industry, in actual effect.
YOU PROMOTE 3RD TRIMESTER ABORTION!
That is the practical effect of your position.
YOU are on the SAME SIDE as NARAL!
The Texas Legislature was in a burning building, and they made a law that allows all the victims to burn up.
Which means you decide to exist in your own universe. Good luck being useful in this one.
Simply untrue. There are three groups of people here: the PP/NARAL crowd who want every baby to be killed, every time. Your crowd, which says every baby can be killed, as long as they’re killed on your schedule. And us, who demand that the Constitution’s explicit demand for equal protection for every person be obeyed.
The flak will have to explode without me for a few hours. I have to go drive to a radio interview.
I’ll let Thomas Jefferson hold down the fort...
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
Take gun control laws. Every gun control law is unconstitutional. Every gun control law ever passed was rationalized by calling it a "public safety" measure yet the public is never safer by these measure, in fact quite the opposite is true. How do you think we are going to change it back? Would you not support a law repealing some section of gun control simply because the rational was that it ceased to provide any public safety measure and not because it was blatantly unconstitutional?
It's time to take the fight to the people that have destroyed our nation, and at this time, the best way to do that is to use the same tools and strategies that they have used so effectively against us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.