Posted on 01/12/2008 11:15:32 AM PST by Salvation
Regardless of some people's problems with Governor Romney on the life issue, the truth is, he is running on a campaign platform that supports the HLA.
The problem with Roe v. Wade, with way too much of bio”ethics, is the false premise of “personhood.” You can’t legislate what is endowed by our Creator. As our Constitution and laws are based on the Declaration of Independence, there is no place for naming a person a person.
Person and human being were always interchangeable-except for the blip of SCOTUS granting personhood to corporations a few years after the 14th was ratified.
In Roe v. Wade, it was used to deny legally recognized God-given rights to the unborn. This legal definition was used to deny the unborn their rights. Here is the remedy to that:
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
I would vote for the amendment if given the opportunity.
However, I’m concerned that the deliberation is itself an infringement of all our rights: unlike citizenship and sufferage, “personhood” cannot be bestowed by the Constitution.
I’m afraid that the current version of the Human Life Amendment will end up repeating the error of the 14th Amendment by assuming the definition of “human person.”
Any amendment that attempts to define - or doesn’t - “person” will run up against at least a hundred years of philosophical deliberation dividing our brothers and sisters into those with the right not to be killed and those without. Most ethicists of the last century use personhood interchangeably with a certain amount of competence - i.e., “moral agent.” Even some Christian philosophers use abilities that a 3 year old would barely meet. Some definitions wouldn’t include most teens.
More, it must be written with biotechnology in mind, careful to include our children of the future: the “extracorporeal” embryo and any children “procreated” or “produced,” whether they have 46 chromosomes, natural or un-natural. We must ensure that these children of humans will be protected from slavery and becoming property. I believe that their rights will come from the same place that ours do - you can’t divide the image of God, no matter how many may try.
It is not an amendment. It directly addresses the words of Roe itself.
It does not need ratification.
Here it is:
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.
You can’t legislate what is endowed by our Creator. As our Constitution and laws are based on the Declaration of Independence, there is no place for naming a person a person.
***That’s a bunch of balderdash. If Congress can name a corporation a person then they can name a preborn human a person. And it isn’t about legislating what is endowed, it’s about officially extending the rights of protection that our society does for postborn babies as it does to preborn babies, just like it wrestled with extending rights of protection to slaves as we did to free men.
“I believe that each state should be able to make their own choice as to whether they are pro-life or prochoice.” - Mitt Romney, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Dec. 12, 2005
Do you know that he voted 100% to limit and/or ban abortions when given the chance in the Senate?
***Yes. Are you aware that Fred doesn’t support RtLA, he has quotes that are admittedly prochoice before he had his admirable prolife record, and he’s worked as a lobbyist for an abortion rights organization. That’s not maxing out at 100% in the eyes of many prolifers. Maybe to you, but not to them. This is a political calculation that Fred made, so it’s best to just acknowledge it and move on. Fred is Pro life. He may not be “pro life enough” for some. In my case, it’s enough to get my vote but not earn my support. Fred is conservative. He may not be “conservative enough” for some. There are differences on the Globalism/FleeceTrade/EconomicPatriotism scale as well. There are differences in experience in the Military, WOT, immigration, CFR, and probably taxes. Just acknowledge the differences as factual and then move on. It’s okay to put your spin on things (”It’s only 19hours/he was a junior partner/it’s no big deal”) but if that doesn’t change someone’s mind then let them go to the other camp.
With Mitt Romney, there’s always lawyerly fine print. If you ignore it, you WILL get snookered.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/aug/07081609.html
Romney Supports Human Life Amendment, Then Qualifies Stance
By Peter J. Smith
BOSTON, August 16, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has thrown his endorsement behind a human life amendment, an important clarification of the presidential hopeful’s pro-life position as he bids for the Republican nomination.
Romney made the choice to abandon his earlier rejection of the human life amendment as he poured money and energy into winning the Ames caucus in Iowa, where Republican voters run strongly social conservative.
“I do support the Republican platform and I do support that big part of the Republican platform, and I am pro-life,” Romney said during an August 6 Republican debate, when asked whether he affirmed the human life amendment, a key part of the 2004 Republican pro-life platform that was written by his pro-life advisor James Bopp,Jr..
The human life amendment intends to change the US Constitution by expanding 14th Amendment protections - such as due process and equal protection clauses - to include unborn children. Such an amendment would ban abortions nationwide and repeal the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
However the Associated Press reports that Romney later qualified his support for a human life amendment. According to the AP, Romney said his advisor Bopp had told him “there are a wide range of possible human life amendments” ranging from a total ban on abortion to an amendment that let states make the decision. On top of that, getting both houses of Congress and 38 out of 50 states to support a constitutional amendment, Bopp told him, “is just not realistic.”
Romney said he prefers a strategy of appointing strict constitutionalist judges, who might overturn Roe v. Wade, and allow the states to decide their policy regarding abortion. However, qualifying his support for the human life amendment would seem an unwise political move for Romney, who is trying to gain the trust of social conservatives skeptical of his pro-life conversion. President Bush also gave support to the amendment to win the GOP nomination.
Romney’s 2005 pro-life conversion has been subject to scrutiny by pro-life advocates, including Republican presidential candidate and senator Sam Brownback, who say Romney’s post-conversion actions do not demonstrate a true pro-life conviction. Romney approved in 2006 the Massachusetts health care plan that included taxpayer funding for abortions. In a 2005 Boston Globe editorial Romney also came out in favor of supporting stem-cell research on “surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization.”
Hounded by the abortion question, Romney recently told reporters: “I’m pro-life; it would be great if we could just leave it at that.”
Related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Youtube Video Questions Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion Story
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07061505.html
The Romney Report: An Analysis of Republican Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050711.html
The Romney Report: An In-Depth Analysis of Mitt Romney’s Legacy on Life and Family Continued - Part II
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051409.html
Gov. Romney and His Enforcement of the Pro-Same-Sex Goodridge Decision
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051511.html
Thank you. It is good to have those links at hand.
For starters, here’s one I read recently:
http://soundpolitics.com/public/2007/11/mitt_romney_on_human_life_amen.html
Yes. I heard his explanation. He is CFR — I trust him not.
There may be more, but these are the ones I could verify quickly.
Sadly, the perfect is the enemy of the good it seems. Due to the failure of conservatives to unite behind Mitt ( the one viable, pro-HLA conservative who could have stopped McCain), we will probably end up with McCain (a man who still supports funding for embryonic stem cell research - not to mention a whole long list of other non-conservative things) or Rudy (even worse for pro-lifers).
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.