Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An open letter to Sen. Ted Cruz: 'Twenty week' abortion bill is immoral and unconstitutional
Equal Protection for Posterity ^ | July 11, 2013 | Tom Hoefling

Posted on 07/11/2013 6:27:21 AM PDT by EternalVigilance

EqualProtectionforPosterity.com

United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,

Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called 'twenty week' or "fetal pain" abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.

Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a "law" were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot "feel pain"?

Would a "law" that gave "legal" permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?

Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.

The Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

The Fourteenth Amendment:

"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."

Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God's image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not "pain," not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.

America's founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation's charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d'etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.

"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, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."

"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."

Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.

The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.

If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you're not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.

If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.

The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.

"Don't worrry they won't feel a thing" is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It's wrong.

Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the "fetus," or child, is a person, "of course" they are protected by our Constitution's explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, "legal" permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.

One last thing:

Since "laws" such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.  

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."

-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.

"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."

-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.

"Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever."

"This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other.  It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times.  No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."  


-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)

"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."

-- Samuel Adams

"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."

-- Alexander Hamilton

Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.

Very sincerely,

Tom Hoefling
Chairman, America's Party

www.equalprotectionforposterity.com
tomhoefling@gmail.com


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: abolition; constitution; prolife; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last
This is the article this morning that prompted me to write this letter to the Senator:

Cruz on Texas Late-Term Abortion Ban: Without Life, There is No Pursuit of Happiness

I note that he glaringly left out the word "equal."

1 posted on 07/11/2013 6:27:21 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

HuH? Virtually every point in that letter SUPPORTS Sen. Cruz’s position because an unbord child is undoubtably a person. The fact they can feel pain just proves that.


2 posted on 07/11/2013 6:31:33 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

No. He supports “fetal pain” laws, which are immoral and unconstitutional.


3 posted on 07/11/2013 6:35:34 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Eternal Vigilence is on a crusade to attack all the prolifers.


4 posted on 07/11/2013 6:37:06 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

No. I’m on a crusade to restore respect for the Declaration principles upon which our survival as a free republic depend.


5 posted on 07/11/2013 6:40:28 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Have fun storming the castle! :)


6 posted on 07/11/2013 6:41:17 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The legalization of abortion in the US was only as a safety valve for extreme conditions, not a convenience for narcissistic parents or an instrument of government policy for control of certain populations. It has been used to “adjust” the ratios of various ethnic groups or to support a political point of view, the “adjustments” having little to do with actual practice of liberty or pursuit of happiness.


7 posted on 07/11/2013 6:42:31 AM PDT by alloysteel (Unattended children will be given a Red Bull and a free Kazoo. Reminds me of Congress...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
-"HuH? Virtually every point in that letter SUPPORTS Sen. Cruz’s position because an unbord child is undoubtably a person. The fact they can feel pain just proves that."

You're missing the point. The point is....that this bill, by the very nature of it specifying WHEN (how old the fetus is) that you CANNOT have an abortion, it also implies WHEN you CAN have an abortion. I understand the purpose of the bill is to 'restrict' abortions, but by 'legislating' the WHEN ... you are affirming and legalizing the process prior to the WHEN.

8 posted on 07/11/2013 6:43:02 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

So, inflicting pain on a baby after 20 weeks is “Moral”? You sir are a psychopath.


9 posted on 07/11/2013 6:43:43 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

that’s directed at the Blog Pimp. Not you JC.


10 posted on 07/11/2013 6:46:48 AM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Unlike you and EV, I oppose Wendy and her minions.


11 posted on 07/11/2013 6:49:31 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

Oops! Apologies!


12 posted on 07/11/2013 6:49:58 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA

Look around you and see the decay of our society. Do you wonder how we got here? It wasn’t done through sweeping changes overnight, it was done incrementally. That is the only way we are ever going to fix it. I don’t see how anyone could fail to support a step in the right direction simply because they don’t think the step is long enough.


13 posted on 07/11/2013 6:52:26 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

The criteria for protection under the explicit provisions of the United States Constitution is not whether you can supposedly “feel pain.” It is whether or not you are a person.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“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.”

So tell me, is the child under twenty weeks a person, or not?

If you have any regard for the oath to support the Constitution, that’s really the only question you have to answer in deciding whether to support these particular “laws.”


14 posted on 07/11/2013 6:54:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Exactly, less abortions to me means pro-life, this is a pro-life measure. One can argue but if one has an absolutist bill, fighting planned parenthood, the Democrats, Feminists tooth and nail, little is going to be accomplished imho.


15 posted on 07/11/2013 6:56:04 AM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Durus

The problem with your reasoning is that bills like this are not a step in the right direction. They are are giant step away from the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against abortion.


16 posted on 07/11/2013 6:56:11 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

There won’t be any less abortions, though. Under this law it is permissible to kill every single child.


17 posted on 07/11/2013 6:57:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
HuH? Virtually every point in that letter SUPPORTS Sen. Cruz’s position because an unbord child is undoubtably a person. The fact they can feel pain just proves that.

You may not be familiar to the OP's history. Anyone who proposed an incremental change to abortion laws is some hideous monster because they do not join in the crusade to immediately make all abortions illegal.

As in, saving some lives is "immoral" since not all will be saved.

Many of us have the long-term identical objectives as the OP, but because we disagree with the path to achieve those objectives, we're apparently bad people.

18 posted on 07/11/2013 7:02:57 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BeadCounter

Texas law already recognizes what is self-evident, that the child in the womb is an individual person:

Texas Penal Code, Title 1., Chapter 1., Sec. 1.07. — Texas Penal Code Title 5., Chapter 19., Sec. 19.02.

(26) “Individual” means a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

(49) “Death” includes, for an individual who is an unborn child, the failure to be born alive.

And this:

TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON

CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

Sec. 19.02. MURDER.

(b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;

(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or

(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.

Sadly, when Rick Perry and the “pro-life” Republicans put that section in the Texas Code a decade ago, they also put in this:

Texas Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19, Sec. 19.06.

APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:

(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;

(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;

(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or

(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

So, all they have to do is strip out the latter portion, and voila, abortion is illegal everywhere in Texas.

Don’t be deceived. The bill that was just passed makes this situation even worse. It walks all over the first section, which is good, by creating a sub-class of sub-humans, based on the arbitrary and unreasonable notion that they can’t feel pain.

Please, don’t offer support to lawless laws that codify permission to murder innocents. All it does is surrender the moral, constitutional and legal argument against abortion.

Which assures the continuation of abortion on demand.

We now have forty years of experience, and fifty five million dead children, to prove it.


19 posted on 07/11/2013 7:03:33 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
The point is....that this bill, by the very nature of it specifying WHEN (how old the fetus is) that you CANNOT have an abortion, it also implies WHEN you CAN have an abortion. I understand the purpose of the bill is to 'restrict' abortions, but by 'legislating' the WHEN ... you are affirming and legalizing the process prior to the WHEN.

It's already legal. This bill restricts that current permissiveness, and is therefore a step in the right direction.

20 posted on 07/11/2013 7:05:01 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
"You're missing the point. The point is....that this bill, by the very nature of it specifying WHEN (how old the fetus is) that you CANNOT have an abortion, it also implies WHEN you CAN have an abortion. I understand the purpose of the bill is to 'restrict' abortions, but by 'legislating' the WHEN ... you are affirming and legalizing the process prior to the WHEN."

So? every gain is a plus. If there is one thing we should of learned from the left is that sometimes you have to obtain your objectives incrementally. The attitude that it's got to be 100% of what we want or nothing often gets you nowhere, as it has with abortion the last 30 lyears. Every gain that gets you closer to the goalposts is a good thing.

21 posted on 07/11/2013 7:05:41 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Don’t take it so personally. It’s not about you. It’s about the only principles that can possibly stop abortion: Personhood, equal protection, and the duty to keep the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“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.”

Do you see any exceptions listed there for persons who cannot “feel pain”? Because I don’t.


22 posted on 07/11/2013 7:06:44 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
No. He supports “fetal pain” laws, which are immoral and unconstitutional.

So Cruz should not support this Texas bill? Is that what you're saying?

23 posted on 07/11/2013 7:08:10 AM PDT by al_c (http://www.blowoutcongress.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

LOL - See my post #21 which I posted before you responded to me. Looks like we are on the same page. We have a word for people who won’t accept incremental gains and demand a total win or nothing - “losers”. I’m more concerned about saving as many baby’s lives as possible now than winning a point.


24 posted on 07/11/2013 7:08:31 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

All I see is the perfect being the enemy of the good.


25 posted on 07/11/2013 7:09:02 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
It's already legal.

Abortion is not, and can never be, legal, as it violates God's commands, the first law of nature, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, every clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, and the explicit, imperative, absolute equal protection requirements of multiple amendments to that Constitution.

26 posted on 07/11/2013 7:10:48 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Absolutely that’s what I’m saying. Or the one like it that Rubio is fixing to offer up in the Senate.


27 posted on 07/11/2013 7:12:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
All I see is the perfect being the enemy of the good.

The flaw in your reasoning is that the bill in question is not "good."

28 posted on 07/11/2013 7:12:44 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

That’s correct, it amazes me these people who criticize measures that are effectively pro-life as not being enough.

Operation Rescue is about the most hard-core and perhaps pragmatic needs to be added in, pro-life organziation in the US, they have welcomed these kinds of measures:

http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/heated-debate-in-progress-in-texas-house-over-abortion-bill/#comments

I’ve read “pro-life profiles” before: See http://prolifeprofiles.com/

They are such perfectionists, well, one can see their “Tier” program here: http://prolifeprofiles.com/ I think they go overboard though.

I mean Focus on the Family is Tier 3? And Billy Graham is Tier 4. Rick Santorum, Tier 2 which seems to be pretty good.


29 posted on 07/11/2013 7:17:10 AM PDT by BeadCounter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
When abortionist George Tiller was FINALLY charged with a crime, it was LATE TERM ABORTIONS in violation of the law that he was charged with.

When the “Philly House of Horrors” abortionist was charged and convicted of crimes, illegal late term abortions as well as “after birth abortions” were part of what he was charged with.

When Kansas tried to pass “Parental Consent” legislation years ago, idiots in the “purist” camp told us that “NOBODY has the right to consent”. This put the purists on the same side as abortionist George Tiller.

Purists are idiots.

They do not know how to win.

Late term abortion is a mega-million dollar business. A very good percentage of that money is used to fight prolife candidates in every election.

If we want to defund the abortion business, late term abortion bans are the way to go about it.

I am sure that National Right to Life and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Missouri Synod Lutherans and dozens of other religious and prolife authorities think that Senator Cruz is on the right track.

You are way, way out of line to question the “morality” of this legislation.

30 posted on 07/11/2013 7:17:10 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You have never gotten ANYONE elected.
You have never gotten ANY legislation passed.


31 posted on 07/11/2013 7:18:29 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
When abortionist George Tiller was FINALLY charged with a crime, it was LATE TERM ABORTIONS in violation of the law that he was charged with.

Wrong. He was charged for killing already born babies.

32 posted on 07/11/2013 7:19:05 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You have never gotten ANYONE elected. You have never gotten ANY legislation passed.

Sure I have.

Notwithstanding, it is better to pass no legislation than to pass legislation that destroys the moral, constitutional, and legal argument against the practice of killing innocents.

33 posted on 07/11/2013 7:20:24 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
I am sure that National Right to Life and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Missouri Synod Lutherans and dozens of other religious and prolife authorities think that Senator Cruz is on the right track. You are way, way out of line to question the “morality” of this legislation.

Might I suggest that you think things through for yourself, for once.

Because these sorts of bills are clearly immoral, no matter what any of these "authorities" say about it.

34 posted on 07/11/2013 7:23:01 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
Wrong
When you are in combat, and you see several enemy troops firing on your fellow Marines or Soldiers, it is not wrong to begin shooting those who are easiest to hit, first.

Choices have to be made.

When fighting a war, does the general attack the train tracks taking prisoners to the ovens, or the factory making bullets for the enemy? The same plane might not be able to do both at the same time.

Choices have to be made.

Purists are idiots when it comes to strategy.

We have a chance to SAVE some lives. We have absolutely NO CHANCE at making all abortions illegal at this time.

Smart prolifers will call your position absurd.

35 posted on 07/11/2013 7:23:03 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Abortion is not, and can never be, legal, as it violates God's commands, the first law of nature, the principles of the Declaration of Independence, every clause of the stated purposes of the U.S. Constitution, and the explicit, imperative, absolute equal protection requirements of multiple amendments to that Constitution.

And yet it's still legal in the United States, regardless of your legal and Constitutional acumen.

There are two ways to fix that. One is to go for the sweeping stroke, such as the proposed human life amendment that essentially clarifies the Constitution so that it cannot be interpreted differently than you state above (an I heartily approve of). That's an idea that's been floating out there for about 3 decades now. How's it going? Hearts and minds changed yet? Is the current cop of legislators and judges more likely to see it this way than in the last 30 years?

The other path is incrementalism - using the left's own tactics against them. Every life saved is a blessing, and even the debates over these measures are helping to change attitudes. 20 weeks is absolutely an arbitrary line, and as medical science continues to improve, it's going to be more and more obvious to people that a baby at 16 weeks is little different than at 20. And then that 12 is little different from 16. Eventually, they will have to face the fact that all euphemisms aside, it's human being from the point of conception.

36 posted on 07/11/2013 7:29:19 AM PDT by kevkrom (It's not "immigration reform", it's an "amnesty bill". Take back the language!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
EV you have now crossed the line.

I have been in Court against Tiller myself.

Tiller was charged with illegal late term abortions without proper 2nd opinions.

What you just posted is NOT TRUE at all and you owe me and this thread an apology.

I helped get the late term abortion laws passed in Kansas, and idiot “purists” like YOU fought that effort. Then, after those laws were on the books, that is what brought Tiller to Criminal Court, illegal late term abortions

37 posted on 07/11/2013 7:29:36 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Your reasoning on the matter isn't clear to me. If you agree that abortion should be illegal except when the life of the mother is truly at risk, then any law that limits abortion, regardless of the reasons used to justify it, should be amenable to you.
38 posted on 07/11/2013 7:32:36 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
We have a chance to SAVE some lives.

Under this bill, every single child can be murdered, under the color of "law."

We have absolutely NO CHANCE at making all abortions illegal at this time.

The "pro-life" Republicans in Texas have a super-majority, the last time I checked. And the governor's office. And every other statewide office. And most of the judgeships.

If they won't equally protect all, as the Constitution requires, when they have total control, when will they do so? When they have one hundred percent of the seats? I don't even think they would do it then, to be perfectly frank.

In any case, all they had to do to make abortion completely illegal in Texas was to strike out Texas Penal Code, Title 5, Chapter 19, Sec. 19.06...which is the permission to kill babies that Perry and the "pro-life" Republicans put there ten years ago come Sept.

APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:

(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;

(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;

(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or

(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.

Added by Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 822, Sec. 2.02, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

Now that they've passed this current bill, they would have to strip out even more to once again make their code morally and constitutionally-compliant.

39 posted on 07/11/2013 7:33:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Durus

I don’t seek to ‘limit’ abortion. I seek to restore the equal protection for every person that the Constitution absolutely requires.


40 posted on 07/11/2013 7:34:51 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Well, brace yourself. Because us “purists” have barely gotten started.

Your way is a proven failure, morally, constitutionally and legally.


41 posted on 07/11/2013 7:36:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You are making the perfect the enemy of the good. As long as Roe is hanging over state legislatures, they can only pass restrictions such as this.


42 posted on 07/11/2013 7:38:05 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

A sidewalk counselor sees three pregnant women walking towards the abortion facility doors. Which one does she talk to?
Is it “immoral” if she does not attempt to talk to all three at the same time?


43 posted on 07/11/2013 7:38:24 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
There are two ways to fix that.

Actually, there is another way, one that will actually be morally sound, and is sure to work:

Demand that our elected officials keep the first obligation of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the supreme right of every person in this country.

44 posted on 07/11/2013 7:38:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I would rather that there be 50 state laws rather than one national law regarding abortion. To that end, I disagree with Sen. Cruz here. Once Federal laws are passed, they have a tendency to be cemented in stone and part of the tragedy of Roe v Wade was that nine justices usurped the will of the states.

But it should be noted that even Roe v Wade recognized a difference between early-term abortion and late-term abortion saying they might approve restrictions on late-term abortions and that is what these current bills are all about.

I would, however, approve of federal legislation that forces abortion providers to be held to the same standards of any facility that does invasive surgery. For way too long, these “clinics” have received a free ride to perform abortions in filthy and unhealthy surroundings without the sort of standards for cleanliness and equipment sterility that one would expect for this type of surgery.

By not codifying federal law on when an abortion can be performed or denied, I think it makes it easier for Roe v. Wade to be eventually overturned and returned to the states which is the ultimate goal. Like Obamacare, the more you amend it, the harder it becomes to scrap the whole thing.


45 posted on 07/11/2013 7:38:46 AM PDT by OrangeHoof (Howdy to all you government agents spying on me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Your way is a proven failure, morally, constitutionally and legally.

In your world where you pretend Roe doesn't exist.

46 posted on 07/11/2013 7:39:25 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
As long as Roe is hanging over state legislatures, they can only pass restrictions such as this.

Tell the courts to go to hell. If they issue opinions that are obviously contrary to the Constitution, their decisions are null and void.

47 posted on 07/11/2013 7:39:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (America's Party - 'We're partisans only for principle.' www.SelfGovernment.US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: al_c

Why are folks on our side so damndumb?

We refuse to take ANY steps in the direction of our goal because we can’t get there in one step?


48 posted on 07/11/2013 7:39:51 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Remember: If you’re ever in a burning building with 3 kids, but can only reach 2 of them, leave ‘em all behind.

/sarc


49 posted on 07/11/2013 7:40:00 AM PDT by workerbee (The President of the United States is DOMESTIC ENEMY #1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Why do we have:

1st Degree Murder
2nd Degree Murder
Manslaughter

All the victims were equally human.

You fail at logic, you fail at history, you fail at strategy.

50 posted on 07/11/2013 7:40:23 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-81 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson