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
Stomping your feed and demanding such while pretending the 800 pound Roe gorilla is not in the room is hardly a recipe for effective action.
And please tell us how, with a Dem-controlled Senate, we can get a Constitutional amendment to address Roe.
Seriously, you are just being a sanctimonious blowhard. Your sentiments are noble. Your direction from those sentiments are worthless.
You posted, in part: The point is....that this bill, by the very nature of it specifying WHEN (how old the fetus is) that you CANNOT have an abortion, it also implies WHEN you CAN have an abortion.
***
I don’t agree with your logic. It would be like saying, a law against armed robbery implies that it’s ok to rob someone without a weapon.
Does the law do all that we might hope it would do? No, but we ought not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
EternalVigilance, I understand what you are saying, but you don’t seem to realize that we are in a long-term war.
You gain ground when and where you can, then you work to gain more.
This bill will limit abortions substantially over the current law.
This reminds me of the fight in Idaho back in the late 1980’s. There was a law that had been passed by Idaho’s legislature that would have restricted abortion to ONLY rape, incest, and imminent death (not “health”) of the mother. This means that 95% of all abortions would have been eradicated in that state.
But, because the law did not go for the full 100% including not allowing abortion for rape/incest/life of mother - many pro-lifers actively worked against passage of the bill. National Right to Life supported it, understanding that you win this war a battle at a time. Pass this law, then work to remove the remaining abortions.
This law is not the end. If it passes and is signed into law (hopefully), then you go to work on the remaining problems.
You are shooting the pro-life movement in the back when you work for defeat of a bill that will save the lives of thousands of unborn children. Pass this one, then begin work on the next step. Sometimes you have to push evil back one step at a time.
You really are an a-hole. The 'crowd' you decry is trying to save what babies can be saved under the current limitations imposed by Roe - limitations you pretend do not exist. That 'crowd' would love to set in place legislation to end all abortion. But they realize that cannot happen as long as Roe exists.
So in other words, they are working to save whatever babies they can while you demand that all babies be saved - while saving none.
One approach actually saves some lives. Hint - it ain't yours.
Too many on the pro-life side are more caught up in their own “I’m better than you” narcissism than in actually getting their hands dirty and preventing abortions. Just like politicians who never really want or intend to SOLVE the problems of social security or anything else — they want the issue to argue about so they can hear themselves pontificate and feed their own egos.
“Notwithstanding, it is better to pass no legislation than to pass legislation that destroys the moral, constitutional, and legal argument against the practice of killing innocents.”
Okay, hypothetically speaking, let’s say you’re standing outside a burning building with several people trapped inside. Would you let them all die simply because you know you can’t rescue all of them?
That is the practical effect of your position.
You want to fund the abortion industry which makes more money on late term abortions than early term abortions.
You want prolife candidates to fight even more money being poured into advertising campaigns against them.
You are PRO LATE TERM ABORTION.
YOU SUPPORT PRO ABORTION POLITICIANS since they agree with your opposition to late term abortion bans.
The law in many states already holds that a fetus IS a person....thus you can be charged with homicide “the killing of a person” for causing the death of a fetus in an AUTO accident...
Your “person” argument is moot already.
What you really are is pro-infanticide under the color of “liberty”...period.
So it’s either all or nothing with you? Look ... the bill will stop a lot of unecessary deaths. Obviously not allowing any at all would be best, but that bill would never pass. This bill gives Texas the toughest restrictions on abortion in the entire nation. That, in my book, is a good beginning. This is not a battle that will be won with one singular bill. It’s going to take many steps to undo what the SC did back in ‘73. And the battle is only going to get tougher.
That said, if EternalVigilance is so much of a Constitution purist, he'd be applauding a state standing up for its guaranteed right to govern itself.
E.V. would be sitting in England on June 10th, 1944 complaining that Ike hasn’t taken Berlin yet and criticizing the Normandy landings because of such.
“There won’t be any less abortions, though. Under this law it is permissible to kill every single child.”
They say a number of clinics will be closed down because of this law because the clinics will not meet the standards.
What Ann Coulter said about Aikin and Mourdock, they were “Pro-Life Bad ___es”, so in the end, the pro-life cause lost with them though for making mistakes, we can’t throw people under the bus. All the same, this points to the need of Pro-Lifers needing to be careful in how they say things in running for office.
Only some? Then clearly it’s bad! /sarc
Would it be moral to oppose a bill that spared paraplegics while quadraplegics still killed?
Of course. At least it spares the paraplegics. Supporting it does NOT endorse the murder of the quadraplegics.
If I were a quadraplegic, I’d vote for it! At least spare some people!
And then I’d continue to work for the protection of the rest, of course.
I was merely stating the point of the article. I don’t support the logic. I fully support the bill. Hope that clears things.
I was merely stating the point of the article. I don’t support the logic. I fully support the bill. Hope that clears things.
Way to go, pro-lifers! *clap clap clap*
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.