Posted on 03/09/2006 12:07:07 PM PST by NYer
HONOLULU, March 9, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Hawaii has passed legislation to allow abortion as an in-office medical procedure as well as waiving a mandatory 90-day residency period, prompting one commentator to dub the island state as the “baby killing center of the Pacific.”
“While high-profile media attention has been focused on South Dakota’s effort to outlaw abortion, Hawaii is quietly set to become the baby killing center of the Pacific,” said Judie Brown, president of American Life League.
House Bill 1242 is predicted to pass Hawaii's state house this week and then proceed to almost certain passage in the state senate. This bill allows abortions to be performed in any doctor's office; current law requires it to be done in a hospital. Also, this bill would remove the 90-day residency period for a woman obtaining an abortion in Hawaii. Although an effort to expand legal abortion to include viable as well as non-viable babies was defeated in the house, senators may try to re-insert that provision in the bill.
“The combined effect of all of these changes will be to make Hawaii one of the quickie-abortion capitals of the world,” said Brown. “One can envision mothers flying in from the continental United States, Japan and many other countries to have abortions performed in storefronts. Under this bill, baby killing facilities will be as numerous as pineapple stands as unscrupulous quacks seek to make money from the deaths of children.”
“We urge Hawaii’s state legislators to reject House Bill 1242 and any similar legislation,” Brown emphasized. “If this bill does make it through the legislature, it is critical for Gov. Linda Lingle to veto it. The eyes of the pro-life world are on Hawaii this week as people pray for the children there and put on hold any future Hawaiian vacation plans.”
Contact Governor Linda Lingle:
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai`i
96813
Phone: 808-586-0034
Fax: 808-586-0006
e-mail: http://www.hawaii.gov/gov/contact/email
Contact State Representatives:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/house/members/members.as...
Contact State Senators:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/site1/senate/members/members.a...
Well well....the consuming fire god Moloch...to whom babies were sacraficed for 'good will'...co habitating with Pele'
Fire gods of a feather...smoke together..
Paradise just became hell....for pre born babies..
There are actual amendments concerning slavery.
I am VERY pro life, but I think it's a states issue - not a national one.
That isn't what I want. The overturning of Roe vs. Wade should make clear that all States must have laws prohibiting abortion, and that the laws must be enforced as vigorously as the laws enforcing against the commission of capital murder.
"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." (14th Amendment, US Constitution)
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government" (Article 4, Section 4, US Constitution)
"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 ..." (Declaration of Independence)
A new person is created at the time of conception, genetically distinct from Mother and Father.
The 14th Amendment requires that the States treat all persons equally, and not allow them to be deprived of life without due process.
Article 4 Section 4 requires that the US Government must guarantee a Republican form of government in all States, which would necessarily include the upholding of Common Law (under which abortion was considered murder and prohibited), and also require the upholding of laws against murder to protect all persons, since as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, the right to life is one of the founding self-evident principals of our country. A State that permits some of its inhabitants to be legally murdered is an arbitrary, erratic and autocratic despotate.
The Rights of States here is not whether or not they will permit abortion to be legal, but what manner of punishment they will attach to the crime - fines, disbarrment from the medical profession, jail time, or execution.
If a State can legalize abortion by defining the unborn as non-persons, then it can also arbitrarily define any other class of innocent people it wishes as non-persons - the Handicapped, the Elderly, Jews, Catholic Priests, Business Owners, Independent Farmers, etc., and rescind the legal protection of the murder laws from that class of persons. Haven't we seen where this goes already in Germany, Russia, China, Cambodia, Holland, Spain, etc., in the last century?
The 10th Amendment doesn't give States the right to decide whether or not to prosecute heinous crimes at Common Law. It says that powers not held by the US Government are reserved to the States, and powers not held by the States are reserved to the People.
In order for abortion to be legalized, it would have to be held that a State can legitimately decide to remove the protection of the law from a class of innocent persons, allowing anyone with the power to kill them at will.
You are understanding States Rights in far to broad a fashion here. Can a State legitimately decriminalize Theft? Perjury? Assault? Of course not! Why then are you willing to grant them a power to decriminalize Murders as they see fit?
If people have an unalienable right to life, and if the unborn are people, the State must afford them the protection of the Law.
Actually, the New York Legislature recriminalized abortion in 1972, but Gov. Rockefeller vetoed it.
What do you think of the idea of using Article 4 Section 4 to ban abortion? Can a State be said to have a Republican form of Government if its laws permit the murder of unborn children at will? I don't see how that is possible if a Republican form of Government includes adherence to Common Law and acceptance of the principals of the 14th Amendment (equal protection of all persons under the law).
No. It was a crime at Common Law. Read Blackstone and Justice Wilson.
"Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb ... this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor ..." (Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England)
"With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger." (Justice Wilson, US Supreme Court 1789-1798, signer of Declaration and Consitution)
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html
Misdemeanor at that time did not have the same meaning it has today (i.e. something like a traffic offense or not meeting an Affirmative Action quota), but meant very serious sorts of crimes, which is why our Constitution gives power of impeachment for "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".
Abortion prior to Quickening at that time was unprosecutable because it was undetectable, and because common opinion held mistaken views concerning human development given the then rudimentary level of medical knowledge.
RE: Post 85, excellent points all, and I stand duly chastised.
RE: Post 86, Is'nt it amazing how fast we've fallen? I would doubt that such a law would have passed the NY legislature in 1986, let alone 2006.
Has anyone else noticed how our **elected** legislators are becoming like little csars? Why are they dictating to the majorities while pandering the minorities?
No more vacations in Hawaii.
Pity. I like it there.
But it wasn't at one time.
Infants are persons also protected by the Constitution.
As are the unborn. Abortion was illegal everywhere at the time of the nation's founding.
Doesn't anyone think that the states will polarize into those that are pro-life and the other pro-death states.
You will know at the stateline if you are entering a Sodom and Gommorah zone.
I think this is God's will and maybe he will make his move once the cards are dealt.
Granted, from a practical point of view, it looks like we'll have to knock down Roe and then slug it out state by state. But as a matter of principle, there are also "actual amendments" concerning the right to life (Fifth Amendment: No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law) which ought to apply to every human being without regard to age or condition of dependency.
In fairness, I think that The People's Republic of China has retired that award.
They have now entered the world of darkness.The Lord will sort them out as he did Sodom and Gomora.
Ops4 God Bless America!
Rhode Island would.
Not only that; when the matter is sent back to the states, it will cost the pro-abortion folks a LOT more money because they'll have to fight the issue in EVERY state, whereas now, they only have to donate to the sitting members of Congress.
70% of the people on the planet don't know Christ.
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.