KEYES: "Born alive, no more to die!"

WorldnetDaily ^ | 3/18/02 | Alan Keyes

[Keyes For President]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26869

Monday, March 18, 2002

---

---

Born alive, no more to die!

---

Posted: March 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Alan Keyes

---

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

The House of Representatives last week passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, thanks to the efforts of, among others, two courageous citizen politicians – Illinois state Sen. Pat O'Malley, and nurse Jill Stanek. The measure codifies explicitly what, in less Orwellian times, should have been obvious to everyone – that living human children who have entirely completed the process of birth may not be denied the protection of the law.

The law was made necessary by repeated instances of fully born and living children being denied medical care and left to die, simply because their parents had not wished them to be born alive – and attempted to abort them. Jill Stanek was moved to action originally because she found herself holding a dying infant that no one in her hospital would lift a finger to help.

Of course, it should be equally obvious to everyone that pre-born children are as deserving of protection against violent assault or deadly neglect as born children. Principled pro-lifers are bound to feel a little strange in striking such a vigorous blow to defend exclusively the born children. And the paragraph in the law that explicitly denies that it affects the legal status of abortion can feel a hard pill to swallow.

But Stanek and O'Malley, and the pro-life legislators in Washington, can be very proud of what they have done. First, of course, because however strange it may feel to focus, even for a moment, on saving only some of the innocent, this is the way it must be. We do the good we can, when we can.

But there is another benefit to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, one that does indeed extend to every last innocent child threatened by the abortionist's evil intent. For in exposing the practice of post-abortion infanticide, the law makes manifest and visible the contradiction at the heart of the abortion doctrine. The decision to abort always separates some little human beings from others by mere act of petty human will. Hiding the nature and consequences of this decision is the chief goal of the abortion lobby. Hence their hatred of the use of educational materials that show mothers the true nature of abortion.

But in the tales of dirty hospital linen closets where these fully born children are left to die, in the tales of doctors and nurses standing and watching as infants struggle for life and lose, we see clearly and starkly the perennial desire of some human beings to decide which of their fellow creatures of God will live, and which will die. It is all so much clearer, it seems, once the baby is born.

This contradiction between the demand for dignity and choice for ourselves, and our demand for the power to deny it to others is more hidden from view in abortion than it was in Southern slavery or in Hitler's Germany. In abortion, the womb itself is turned from the quiet and safe place of nurturing care to the dark and hidden sanctuary of the biggest lie of all – that men, and women, can lord it over their brethren, can kill or spare them at will and whim. When that lie leaves the womb, and seeks to work its evil even on born children, we get a good, clear look at it, and a new opportunity to prevent its heinous work.

And that is why abortion's media lackeys are so blatant in their lies about post-birth infanticide. The Associated Press reported the passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act as follows: "The House voted today to define a fetus that is fully outside a woman's body as having been born alive, which would give the fetus legal protection"

When the abortion lie is caught killing children outside the womb, the abortion lobby shamelessly renames infants to keep the lie hidden. If an abortionist wants to kill something, then it can't be a baby – it's a fetus that escaped the death chamber. But at all costs the American people must be kept from realizing that the abortion principle involves one human being looking at another and saying, "I choose to kill you, because I am stronger."

Sen. O'Malley is the principled pro-life candidate for governor of Illinois in the March 19 Republican primary. His opponent, Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan, has repeatedly refused to intervene to stop hospital infanticide. The lying media has attempted to suppress O'Malley's candidacy, as it always attempts to suppress the truth about abortion and infanticide to which he and Jill Stanek have testified. O'Malley has the courage and the resolve to fight his way through this thicket of deception, and an army of grassroots pro-lifers is following him. Sen. O'Malley, and Jill Stanek – who is raising the same banner in her race for the state legislature in the 81st District – deserve the fervent support of all defenders of life, and truth.

---

Related offer:

'Baby Parts For Sale': An inside look at America's most shocking industry. Now available from WorldNetDaily's online store!

---

Tune into Alan Keyes' new show "Alan Keyes is Making Sense" on MSNBC, Monday through Thursday, 10 p.m., ET. And be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

---

Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes, was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and 2000 Republican presidential candidate.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I am looking foward to placing my primary vote for O'Malley tomorrow. I am sick of lip-service politicians like Jim Ryan; I want to elect someone that actually believes in what he preaches in public. I truly feel that Pat O'Malley does and I pray that he wins the IL primary tomorrow. We really need some moral and honest politicians here!

[Keyes For President]

The Court based their ruling under the judicial-made philosophy of the right to privacy, which is a right that is found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. The 4th Amendment protects us from illegal search and seizure, but the Founders did not include the absolute right to privacy for a reason; this would be a dangerous breeding ground for criminal activity and thwarted police investigations.

You are correct, of course. Leaving morality aside, Roe V. Wade is just plain bad law. It should be overturned on legal principle alone.

Of course, abortion is morally indefensible and the right to life must be protected for all, especially the unborn who cannot fend for themselves.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Abortion is horrible and impossible to defend, that is correct. But I have come to believe that the best way to fight abortion is through the law and using the inconsitency of the Supreme Court and their unconstitutional judge-made rights against them.

[Keyes For President]

Here is a heartfelt bump for Stanek and O'Malley!

Here's one more!

[jwalsh07]

Good luck and give Jill our thanks from CT!

[jwalsh07]

Justice Blackmun stated if the unborn were persons then they would be protected by the 5th and 14th amendments. My question for Harry is, if they are not persons, read human beings, just what the heck are they?

Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.

President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.

[jwalsh07]

Justice Blackmun stated if the unborn were persons then they would be protected by the 5th and 14th amendments. My question for Harry is, if they are not persons, read human beings, just what the heck are they?

Blackmun based the majority opinion on just this, he stated that there was no consensus on when life began because he knew that the Constitution acknowledges the right to life and its primacy over liberty and property.

President Bush understands this which is why he is moving slowly but inexorably toward defining the unborn as persons. It is a good strategy and I commend him for what he is doing.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I know that in this particular Supreme Court brief, the Justices did not want to determine when exactly a fetus was viable. In their opinion, they stated that in the 3rd trimester the states had the power to further regulate and even prohibit abortion. Unfortunately, in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Supreme Court stated that a woman could have a partial birth abortion if her mental, emotional, or physical health was at risk. In terms of complete inconsistency, they did not revoke the parts of ruling in Roe v. Wade that conflicted with the ruling in Stenberg v. carhart.

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Justice Blackmun stated if the unborn were persons then they would be protected by the 5th and 14th amendments."

I believe that you mean the 9th and the 14th amendments to the Constitution. The 5th Amendment deals with the rights of criminal defendents, i.e. the right against self-incrimination, right to counsel, etc.

[Ahban]

BUMP!

[LurkerNoMore!]

Thanks for this poat.

How disgusting is it that Jill Stanek discovered live-birth abortions at Christ Hospital outside Chicago? Still gives me chills....

[FreedominJesusChrist]

Christ Hospital is still a prime stopping point for abortion protesters. The disgust that God must have in naming a hospital after Him, that conducts abortions.

[patent]

Thanks for the bump and a rebump.

patent

[FreedominJesusChrist]

"Justice Blackmun stated if the unborn were persons then they would be protected by the 5th and 14th amendments."

How does a baby plead the 5th? Just Kidding:)

[CounterCounterCulture]

Thanks for the ping.

[jwalsh07]

No, I meant the fifth and so did Blackmun.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

[jwalsh07]

Abortion on demand has its origins in two cases, Roe and Doe.

Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton

[FreedominJesusChrist]

I understand what you are saying, I do know that other parties were allowed to intervene in this case. But you need to understand that even though the Jane Doe you are talking about was indeed mentioned in the Roe v. Wade brief, the Court had decided that John and Mary Doe did not have standing to sue, so I don't know why you are bringing their case up. Rather, the Court had decided that it was Jane Roe who had standing to sue, that she presented a justiciable controversy, that the termination of her 1970 pregnancy did not render the case moot; so the Court moved to the merits and substances of the Roe case. The Roe case did not make it to the Supreme Court because of a writ of certiori, but rather because Henry Wade, the District Attorney of Dallas County, cross-appealed on the district court's grant of declaratory relief to Roe and to a physician who intervened, while Roe appealed on the district court's ruling to bar injunctive relief.

In the Roe case, the issues at hand were whether or not the Texas statute, outlawing abortion, violated Jane Roe's rights under the 9th and the 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Justice Blacknum said:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific r. co. v botsford, the Court has recognized that a right of personal prvacy, or guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exhist under the Constitution....This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (vaccination); Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization).

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

So, as I stated before, I still interpret this case to revolve around the 9th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

[realpatriot]

"We must protect human life from conception."

You do realize if you place the emphasis on "from" and not "conception", this phrase could be a mantra of the abortion lobby. ie conception is the enemy.

[realpatriot]

Oops, above reply is for Keyes For President. BTW, I love both of your nicks!