Why pro-life laws do not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause

On a recent episode of MSNBC’s “Andrea Mitchell Reports,” host Alex Witt suggested that pro-life laws violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, saying:

[T]here’s supposed to be separation of church and state in our system of government, a tenet of the First Amendment known as the Establishment Clause, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,” but the issue of abortion makes you question if that’s the case.

Her hypothesis betrays her ignorance of the philosophical and moral foundations of pro-life legal protections, and possibly her ignorance of the science regarding when new life begins, as well.

Though many abortion advocates have argued that pro-life laws and/or beliefs are religious by definition, this is not even remotely true.

Atheist Monica Snyder, executive director of Secular Pro Life, has stated: “The belief that abortion is wrong is not exclusive to the Bible — or to any one worldview, theistic, secular, or otherwise.”

In a Live Action video on this subject, Snyder points out that the central argument against abortion – which is founded upon logical reasoning – does not rely upon or refer to religion in any way. This argument, simply put, is: It’s wrong to kill innocent human beings. Abortion kills innocent human beings; therefore, abortion is wrong.

Likewise, the conviction that killing innocent human beings is wrong is not inherently religious. Human civilizations all over the world and throughout history have prohibited and punished this practice.

In order to kill something, it must first be alive. And some abortion advocates have insisted that abortion is not actually an act of killing by arguing that the “belief” that life begins in the womb is religious in nature.

Scientific journals and textbooks have long upheld the truth that a unique, living, individual organism is generated when gametes fuse, i.e., at fertilization.

But one need look no further than an ordinary dictionary to deduce that preborn children are living creatures. Merriam-Webster defines “life” as “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction” (emphasis added).

Human beings in the womb grow rapidly by means of the reproduction (or duplication) of cells (known as mitosis), which is powered by metabolic processes. And the Endowment for Human Development notes that preborn children react to stimuli – they respond to touch as early as 15 weeks post-fertilization, and to sounds by 22 weeks.

Clearly children in-utero meet all of the criteria defining “life.” They are indisputably alive, and abortion kills them. Belief in any particular religion is not required to recognize this reality – even abortionists admit this fact.

Although most religions affirm that preborn children are alive and innocent, and that it is therefore wrong to kill them, this does not mean that these are religious concepts. Religion didn’t create these concepts. Rather, religion embraced these ideas – they are distinct realities, and various religions have simply recognized them.

But what about the Establishment Clause? What is it, and is it relevant to the discussion of pro-life laws?

The initial portion of the First Amendment commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]”

According to the National Constitution Center: “After Independence, there was widespread agreement that there should be no nationally established church. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, principally authored by James Madison, reflects this consensus.”

The Freedom Forum also states that the Establishment Clause “has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent government from either advancing (that is, establishing) or hindering religion[.]”

As previously stated, the fact that preborn children are alive, and that abortion kills them, is a matter of fact, not religious belief. Because pro-life laws are based upon these facts, they are not religious in nature. Therefore, the Establishment Clause does not prohibit the government from enforcing them – in fact, it is totally irrelevant to this issue.

Alex Witt’s argument, like so many others aimed at excusing and promoting the violence of abortion, has no basis in fact or reason.

“The “establishment clause” is an invention of fakes and flakes. The first amendment is freedom of speech, press and church—-free and independent, as a check and balance on the coercive power of government. Speech is the spoken word, press is the published/printed word. Read properly, freedom of the church is one cogent thought, not two opposing clauses, ie Congress shall make no law having to do with an established church or preventing the free exercise, thereof. at the time the Constitution was written, states had their own established churches. James Madison believed religion made people law abiding and moral—-which were necessary requisites for a self `governing people. In order to ratify the Constitution, the framers decided not to fight over whose established state church to make the national church, so they just decided not to have a national church. Madison argued that if there was a national church, people would find it was not the one they wanted, so to avoid losers, it was better to just respect state individuality on this matter. Liberal atheists want people to believe the Constitution protects only what people think, as if government can read our minds. Government only knows what we think because of what we chose to say or write, and those are protected speech and press. …so there is no reason to have some other way to protect what we “think”. Liberals want people to believe that the first amendment has two clauses: one is freedom of religion, the other is freedom from religion. (If Islam is able to achieve big numbers in the USA, we might see state and the federal Constitutions amended to make Islam and Sharia the established church, so there is that. Imagine Mexicans and Muslims in a civil war, because that is where we are headed because Mexico is one of the least religious countries on Earth, and most anti religious, as the revolutionaries wanted to exterminate Catholic/Christian Spanish influence when they got independence from Spain. They also tried to annex Texas, but failed. It’s like the USA claiming to own Canada after its own war of independence. )
The courts built bad precedent on top of bad precedent to bring homosexuals out of the closet so they can force the church into the closet……and the press has a conflict of interests in suppressing freedom of the church and religious morality, so it may be free to impose its own morality as national morality. All laws impose somebody’s morality. Even speed limits impose morality , ie you are driving at an unsafe and imprudent speed…..ie , it is wrong to drive too fast. part of the liberal sleight of hand is to always make sure to teach about the Salem witch trials as if that tiny episode is emblematic of the dangers of the church . It happened 100 years before the creation of the USA in an English colony that lost its charter for a time and was virtually lawless. Liberals have brought back spectral evidence against Trump and Republicans, and other enemies and straw men. Communists warn about “witch hunts” in Orwellian fashion, as if communists don’t exist or are not a threat—-just like witches don’t exist or are harmless, as far as they know. The threat is people who believe in a God, in truth…..that there is something more than what people can see, hear, taste, smell and touch according to our physical senses…..while at the same time, they make a god out of “reason”, which is a limited human,mental faculty……ie, not a physical one. Thoughts and ideas are not physical, nor are the meanings of words. Materialism is dangerous. Democrats’ tribal Stalinism is dangerous. …..”trans-gender” (not trans sexual) people being the latest tribe created and protected as victims by liberals…..who have made the Church into the enemy because it is an obstacle to their power. California opened strip clubs before churches from Covid pandemic shutdowns, which was a good way to put churches out of business. Churches mostly are white and some own a lot of land, so expect farmers and churches to me under siege in coming years as liberals believe too much land is owned by white people and must be shared as reparations.
Government has coercive power, the church has persuasive power. Framers wanted us not to be ruled by kings or popes, arbitrarily and capriciously, but LAW is the king and people…..and laws are made through a deliberate process by the people, with checks and balances under a Bill of Rights—which also is like one cogent thought—-describing freedom and what that means.
The 4th amendment protected liberty and property——,…no ex post facto laws or bills of attainder, ie legislative takings….like Democrat Congress people voting their enemies into prison to take liberty, or ballot props taking property in some states.
In all the talk about an “establishment clause”, we hear “does it support or endorse religion?” But freedom of the church is a protected Constitutional right so of course the Constitution considers the church to be an unqualified good. This was not the French Revolution. If the framers did not consider religion to be good, they would not have guaranteed free exercise of the church…or allowed states to have established state churches. Perhaps one reason for the Islamic invasion of the EU and USA is to make religion less appealing to everybody, and so communists can one day come to the rescue and ban all religions when they protect us finally from Islamic fundamentalism.
But the test is not “does it endorse or promote” religion or the church. The test should be “is it a LAW?” Congress shall make NO LAW……means no to coercion, not persuasion or value judgments.”————

The first amendment bundled parts of several key civil rights together. They were not limited to how the people interacted with government; they were focused on how the people interacted with each other. Remember that prior to the Revolution, British soldiers would stand on street corners watching the people for signs of subversive behavior. The first amendment was to guarantee to the people that the new government would never do this.

The first Congress undertook the exercise to draft the Bill of Rights amendments to the Constitution. Here is the text of now-Representative James Madison's first draft of what would become the first amendment submitted to the 1st Congress House of Representatives:

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

Notice that in #4, Madison wrote "The civil rights of none shall be abridged" not "Congress shall make no law."

A House committee was formed to streamline Madison's language, and they came up with this:

No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.
The freedom of speech, and of the press, and of the right of people to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.

Notice that the committee removed the part about the free exercise of religion. During debate, members of the House further revised #3 to be this:

Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof; or to infringe on the rights of conscience.

The House finally approved 17 amendments to be sent to the Senate. The final House-approved text for the future first amendment became this:

ARTICLE THE THIRD.
Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed.
ARTICLE THE FOURTH.
The freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and of the right of the People peaceably to Assemble, and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for a redress of grievances, shall not be infringed

Now the Senate began streamlining the proposed amendment from the House, eventually revising the list down to 12 amendments. The first amendment, which began as three separate amendments, then revised to two, and then submitted to the states as the third overall amendment, finally became this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Based on the nature of the revisions, it doesn't appear that the "separation of church and state in our system of government, a tenet of the First Amendment known as the Establishment Clause" was ever a concern. In fact, the focus seemed to about protecting the "civil rights" of the people to worship as they pleased.

It's interesting to note that Madison originally put protecting the civil right to worship ahead of preventing the establishment of a national religion. The Senate reversed this sequence, perhaps for style over any overt reasons.

-PJ

Marxism? humm. ok then, have it your way: we obviously disagree because we have a different definition and characterization of ‘religion’ and its practice.

frankly, imho, that’s basically because you have your own set of facts for argument sake. just look at the first Covenant Jews under the Law of God given by Moses, or the Muslims, or the Mormons, or the Pagan Greeks, or the Aztecs or the Molech worshiping Phillistines, or even Marxism for instance. much of that religious practice would and should be illegal under the Constitution and is in fact under ‘due process.’

again, taking your own set of facts is always a good way to win your argument no matter what.

(btw, that’s always the technique of a libertarian or liberal.)

at least we can agree that there is no good reason for the gov’t to ban the standard practice of the Christian religion which is to ‘Love God, and then like unto it, love your neighbor as yourself.’ may God bless you and yours.

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.