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:
You’re on the mark.
We have, or are supposed to have, three co-equal branches of government, so it’s time we put to rest the destructive judicial supremacist notion that only one has a right and a duty to interpret the Constitution.
That unconstitutional belief makes the oath the Executive and every member of the Legislative branch takes utterly meaningless.
That unconstitutional belief is destroying our free republic, as well as the lives of at least three thousand tiny persons in the womb each and every day.
Here is the act:
I
110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 618
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the
Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 22, 2007
Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS
of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JOHNSON
of Illinois, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CANNON,
Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. RENZI, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ROGERS
of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr.
BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr.
ALEXANDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia,
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LINCOLN
DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas,
Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.
DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TIAHRT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORTUN˜O,
Mr. AKIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. HOEKSTRA,
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SALI, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky,
Mr. TERRY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. JORDAN of
Ohio, Mr. GOODE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr.
SHADEGG, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr.
CARTER, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of
amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of
each born and preborn human person.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6652 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2
•HR 618 IH
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Life Act’’.
5 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
6 To implement equal protection for the right to life
7 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant
8 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con9
gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary
10 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of
11 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
12 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right
13 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each
14 human being.
15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
16 For purposes of this Act:
17 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The
18 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include
19 each and every member of the species homo sapiens
20 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the
21 moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at
22 which an individual member of the human species
23 comes into being.
24 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ used in the
25 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3
•HR 618 IH
1 United States and other applicable provisions of the
2 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the
3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri4
tory or possession of the United States.
My candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes, has been a tireless campaigner for the innocent unborn, and their Fourteenth Amendment rights as persons.
On my homepage is a pdf document that, in my opinion, every conservative should read. (Duncan Hunter supporters should read pages four and five very carefully.)
I’m not sure who either of you support but I have seen you on countless pro-life threads. I just wanted you to know that, I, for one appreciate your contributions, your advocacies and relentless fight against this inherent evil. My little bit of appreciation and encouragement for what little it’s worth. :)
What possible other time could life begin if not at conception? Does anyone ask, “how long after the big bang did the universe begin”?
It sounds like a no-brainer to me. However, the issue is not when did life begin; the issue is when did abortion become the constitutional business of the federal government?
Thank you. I join you in thanking all of those who don’t compromise in the cause of restoring legal protection for the unalienable rights to life and liberty for all.
Fertilization IS conception. Conception IS fertilization. Any distinction between the two is an invention of the pro-abortion movement. They have worked hard to redefine “conception” as implantation.
I know Dr. Keyes has spoken eloquently, and consistently, about life. I was referring to those candidates who had opportunities to take action while in office, but did not.
I know. Thanks.
Thank you. You are very gracious.
The Constitution is absolutely concerned with life. You made some excellent points that we are indeed talking about a life. If a life then that life should be protected by our constitution. The line was already crossed when the Constitution was used to deny this life it’s inalienable rights. A law recognizing that life as life, does no disservice to the several states nor the constitution.
It most certainly is.
The Constitution's purpose, according to the Constitution:
"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.
Not really. If that is the case, then why not just call it conception? The way they describe fertilization in their literature seems to imply that first there is conception, then fertilization. They are using the term fertilization because it is what the AMA calls it. It is very misleading.
By not calling it conception, it could cause one to conclude that there are two different times in contention for the beginning of life: conception and fertilization.
I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, but we Catholics have always called it the Immaculate Conception, not the Immaculate Fertilization.
To begin with, since the federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to address abortion to the state governments.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So what happened to the 10th A. when the Court decided Roe v. Wade? Indeed the Roe v. Wade opinion doesn't even mention the 10th Amendment.
Sadly, FDR unwittingly gave the federal government the license to ignore the 10th A. when he established his New Deal federal spending programs. This came about because, regardless of FDR's oath to defend the Constitution, his ideas actually showed that he did not understand the Constitution, particularly the Founder's requirement that all federal powers be enumerated in the Constitution. Enumerated powers were not only smart because they limited the powers of the federal government in general, but also because they limited federal government spending, a stumbling block for FDR and his New Deal programs.
FDR needed to rally the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add his federal spending programs, such as SS, to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment. Instead, FDR made public his plans to stack the Supreme Court to establish his programs, the Constitution be damned. Again, FDR was a constitutional flunky.
Sadly, constitutional flunky justices on the Supreme Court would ultimately use FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to further erode 10th A. protected state powers. And if you want some examples...
Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87cThe problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dAnd after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent John Bingham's ideas about the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR appointed justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation."No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.
Are we having fun yet? :^)
As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs are the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. In fact, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).
About Roe v. Wade...
Given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter help justify its scandalous interpretation of the scope of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion, surely the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment. After, all, Jefferson could just have easily written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently reflected the beliefs of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception.
And not only did the USSC fail to weigh the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children against the right to have an abortion, the Court also "overlooked" the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.
What a mess! :^(
Again, FDR's 10th A.-ignoring establishment of federal spending programs set off a chain-reaction of Court decisions by special-interest, life-hating, 10th A.-igoring justices which continue to weaken 10th A. protected state powers to this day.
Finally, has anybody stopped to consider that when the USSC finds that certain issues are constitutional or unconstitutional, when they are actually not mentioned in the Constitutional at all, abortion rights being a good example, that the USSC is actually wrongly legislating special interest agendas from the bench?
As I've said elsewhere, the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of wide-spread corruption in the federal government, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers of the states are being ignored. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
“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.”
Duncan Hunter is absolutely pro-life from conception to natural death.
He has repeatedly tried to get his personhood-at-conception bill passed, and is the only (current) presidential candidate that said it was right for Congress to step in to help Terri Schiavo. All of the other candidates, either said it was wrong for Congress to step in, or they were not sure.
No state has the power to take innocent human life.
The Declaration of Independence exolains the purpose of the new govt, and recognizes certain inalienable rights-chief among them life.
That means these are rights that come from God, and no gov’t can take them away.
The 14th amendment incorporated the 5th amendment’s due process clause and added the equal protection clause.
That was 1868-long before FDR.
I agree with everything you said. However, you might have missed the point of my post. Again, the USSC’s scandalous legalization of abortion is arguably a consequence of FDR’s 10th A.-ignoring establishment of federal spending programs of the 1930s.
Nice job of quoting John Bingham out of context.
Here, for example, is the rest of the paragraph you culled your first quote from:
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States. They elect their Legislatures; they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property; but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow-men. Why should it not be so? That is the question. Why should it not be so? Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced.”
In other words, Bingham intended the Fourteenth Amendment to empower the federal government to enforce state compliance with the full Bill of Rights. He said that his proposed amendment wouldn’t take away any states’ “rights” (probably he should really have said “powers”) because he didn’t think state governments had any legitimate authority to violate the Bill of Rights in the first place.
I don’t think that we’re on the same sheet of music. Given that I basically agree with what you said, do you mind restating your point in different words since you were evidently trying to refute a point that I made?
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.