Posted on 01/12/2008 8:19:46 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
I received a phone call with a message from Steve King, and while at first I thought he would be asking me to support Fred Thompson, it turned out he was trying to get support for the Life Begins at Conception Act.
Here is information from the Pro-Life alliance about the act, which was submitted in January of 2007 by Duncan Hunter:
A Frontal Assault on Roe v. Wade
For more than thirty years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.
The result has been a brutal holocaust that has claimed the lives of more than 45 million innocent and helpless unborn children in America.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.
As a result, many pro-lifers resigned themselves to protecting a life here and there -- passing laws which slightly control abortion in the most outrageous cases. And other pro-life organizations always tiptoed around the Supreme Court, hoping they wouldn't be offended.
Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions To Define When Life Begins
Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.
Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.
A simple majority vote is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.
When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.
Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.
Instead the Supreme Court said:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Life at Conception Act Would Dismantle Roe
Then the High Court made a key admission:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.
A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.
National Pro-Life Alliance members have led the fight to end abortion-on-demand by passing a Life at Conception Act. They have generated over 1.5 million petitions to Congress to date urging lawmakers to cosponsor and fight for passage pf a Life at Conception Act.
Fight to Overturn Roe v. Wade Heats Up in House
Those continued efforts have led to ever-increasing support for a Life at Conception Act in Congress. Representative Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) Life at Conception Act [H.R. 618] was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2007, with a record 64 original cosponsors.
Members of the National Pro-Life Alliance are lobbying hard to gain a record number of cosponsors for a Life at Conception Act.
An up or down vote on a Life at Conception Act will put politicians on record either for or against ending abortion-on-demand.
Pro-lifers are urged to call (202) 224-3121 and insist that their Congressmen cosponsor Duncan Hunter's H.R. 618 today.
Life Begins at Conception Act:
The phone call suggested there was a petition online, but I don't know if it's the same one from 2002. That petition can be found HERE, but there are only 645 signatures.
They are talking about a national petition drive to get a million signatures. Thy guy gave me a web site he said I could get the petition, but it just linked to the pro-life-alliance site above, and I couldn't easily find a petition from there.
Anyway, it's nice to see that Steve King, Duncan Hunter, and some others are not putting all their marbles on a reversal of Roe. I know that even if this passes, it would be a miracle if the current court accepted it, but miracles do happen.
I also know that some people don't support making life begin at conception, because that would mean states wouldn't be allowed to let people kill babies, even if those babies father was related to the mother, or had forced himself on the mother.
But for the true pro-lifers, this is another way to raise awareness, and to emphasize that the REASON abortion is wrong is because it is murder, and if abortion is murder, we cannot "leave it to the states", or define exceptions because of the transgressions or lineage of the parents.
We still must elect a President who will appoint good judges, and for that we don't require purity of belief -- but compromise necessary to elect representatives should not stand in the way of our advocating for the RIGHT position, even if it conflicts with the people we are supporting.
It is obvious that Steve King understands this principle, if you look at who he has endorsed, while making phone calls for this act which would end all abortion everywhere.
My candidate is also flawed on this point, favoring some abortions (although he does support the Human Life amendment), but that does not stop me from saying he is wrong about abortion for rape and incest.
From the article: Those continued efforts have led to ever-increasing support for a Life at Conception Act in Congress. Representative Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) Life at Conception Act [H.R. 618] was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2007, with a record 64 original cosponsors.
Hunter, ALWAYS ahead of the rest. IIRC, this is not the first year Hunter has introduced this.
And he’s out there every day doing the job.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/01/military_hunter_afghanistan_080111w/
(can only be linked)
Hunter: NATO slacking off in Afghanistan
Friday Jan 11, 2008
Also, I found the web site, it was ".com", not ".org":
Life Begins At Conception. It doesn't mention the petition either.
Interesting post there, CW.
The Steven King endorsement surprised me.
I am all in favor of something to stop the cultural suicide.
Another good reason to support this good man.
Steve doing a bit of penance for supporting a candidate who thinks states’ rights trump unalienable rights?
This is the straight truth live begins with Conception and FRED could support that trying to in a first time to undermine Roe/Wade and limiting its effects...
He would have more support from evangelists still speaking sensible words about moral education,family,but facing the reallity of unwanted pregnancies the hard reallity of today’s society
I don’t think American Life League will be joining the effort. They espouse that life begins at fertilization.
Hunter is probably more pro-life than Huckabee, who’s getting so much mileage from his steadfast position.
And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.
Open Letter to the South Carolina GOP – Duncan Hunter is the Only Choice
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1952186/posts?page=42#42
Dissembling. While Mitt Romney has given his explanation for how & when he switched from pro-choice to pro-life, you will not find a similar explanation from Mr. Thompson. In fact, he falsely says he was always pro-life. That is patently untrue, as all of his public statements and survey answers showed he was indeed pro-choice at least through the late1990s. Granted, he always supported certain restrictions, at least after the first trimester. But his direct quotes such as “The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own” are proof positive he was pro-choice. And his answers about his role in McCain Feingold have been equally evasive and disingenuous at best. CFR is every bit as much his baby as it is McCain’s or Feingold’s, with the worst part – the prohibition of independent issue ads before an election – receiving his full sponsorship and support. It appears that his ‘straight talk’ is similar to that of McCain’s.
BUMP
Stop worshiping at the altar of the Republican party and start supporting candidates that are principled men and women that actually believe what they are campaigning on. Trust me, it will make you feel better.
bump
Duncan Hunter has been quietly but consistently defending innocent human life for decades. It’s high time he got credit for it!
www.gohunter08.com
Well if life begins at conception (of course we really mean something more than mere "life", a turnip is alive) which of my identical twin granddaughters is not "alive"? The split that results in identical twins occurs a few days, as much as a week, after conception. Any later and you get conjoined twins. Which they are not. They are different sizes though. My speculation is that the split was not even, and the little one got a smaller share, resulting in her being a week or so behind the big one. One truly interesting feature is that one of them, the larger one, had the usual two umbilical arteries, but the little one only had one, just like their older sister had. How that happens with identical genes is a bit of a mystery. Thankfully, both the little twin, and their big sister seem to have no significant complications from the SUA.
Thank you for posting this!
Duncan Hunter has sponsored, introduced, and given speeches about this on the house floor for the past ten years-ever since Dornan lost his seat and asked his good friend, whom he knew to be prolife, to carry this particular torch.
In addition, Hunter has defended the disabled, opposed embryonic stem cell research, and every other kind of Frankenstein action against humanity.
www.gohunter08.com
What have the other guys actually done to end this slaughter?
January 22, 2007_________________________________________
Duncan Hunter, MC
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Introduction of the Right to Life Act
Mr. Speaker:
One of the most fascinating and popular shows on television today, In the Womb on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero. Watching these babies suck their thumbs, smile and cry has led many to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child. For many years now, I have introduced an important piece of legislation that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as elected leaders of this great nation; protecting our unborn children from harm. I am proud to once again be introducing the Right to Life Act and I am optimistic of its future.
Unfortunately, over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. Mr. Speaker, this is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children - born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, “If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants’ case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.
The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.
This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.
The courts were not given the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, so if Congress believes that an unborn baby has the right to life under the 14th amendment, then Congress has the power to pass laws protecting the unborn. The Courts would have no constitutional authority to overturn such a law.
This law might result in a constitutional showdown, but then, maybe it's time we had one.
Duncan Hunter is smart. I look forward to the day when I can apply that adjective to a majority the GOP electorate.
They get so caught up in the race and who is ahead and who the media “thinks” has a chance, that they allow the media and others to distort and/or define the “finish line”. They choose champions for their causes who have never taken up the sword and fought for that cause. Their reliance is upon empty words soon to become broken promises and cowardice disguised as compromise. They speak of reality as reason, but will refuse to own that reality after the deed is done. Try to find a Californian who voted for Arnie and that should leave nothing to doubt.
Here is Congressman Hunter’s Dear Colleague letter:
LAST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE “RIGHT TO LIFE ACT”
Dear Colleague:
Every year, over a million innocent babies are intentionally killed by an abortion. This represents nearly 3,000 times a day that an unborn child is taken from its mother’s womb prematurely and denied the opportunity to live. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to our Constitution clearly states that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I wholeheartedly believe that these constitutional rights should include our country’s unborn children.
As you know, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, “If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants’ case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled with the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be determined that we have the authority to determine when life begins.
It is for this reason that I am reintroducing the Right to Life Act, which had over 100 cosponsors in the 109th Congress, on January 22nd. This legislation does what the Supreme Court refused to do and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: 1) The due process clause (Sec. 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life; 2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this amendment; 3) The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life; and 4) Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.
The Right to Life Act will protect millions of unborn children by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. To become an original cosponsor of this important legislation, please contact Michael Harrison in my office at x55672 or at michael.harrison@mail.house.gov, by 12:00 noon on Monday, January 22nd.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
Current Cosponsors: C. Smith, Hayes, G. Davis, McCaul, Franks, T. Johnson, McMorris, Sessions, Cannon, Wamp, Westmoreland, Renzi, Norwood, H. Rogers, J. Wilson, Boustany, Bishop, G. Miller, Herger, Alexander, Manzullo, Cubin, J. Davis, Inglis, McCotter, L. Davis, Forbes, Souder, R. Hall, Musgrave, Pickering, Chabot, Boozman, S. Johnson, Conaway, Bartlett, D. Davis, Tiahrt, Myrick, Fortuno, Akin, Dootlittle, Gingrey, LaHood, Hoekstra, Adrian Smith, Foxx, Sali, R. Lewis, Terry, Pitts, Tancredo
Fred did not promote this act while he was a senator. Why not?
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.