Skip to comments.An open letter to Sen. Ted Cruz: 'Twenty week' abortion bill is immoral and unconstitutional
Posted on 07/11/2013 6:27:21 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
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.
Chairman, America's Party
I note that he glaringly left out the word "equal."
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.
No. He supports “fetal pain” laws, which are immoral and unconstitutional.
Eternal Vigilence is on a crusade to attack all the prolifers.
No. I’m on a crusade to restore respect for the Declaration principles upon which our survival as a free republic depend.
Have fun storming the castle! :)
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.
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, inflicting pain on a baby after 20 weeks is “Moral”? You sir are a psychopath.
that’s directed at the Blog Pimp. Not you JC.
Unlike you and EV, I oppose Wendy and her minions.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
There won’t be any less abortions, though. Under this law it is permissible to kill every single child.
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.
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.
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.
Dont 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 cant feel pain.
Please, dont 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.
It's already legal. This bill restricts that current permissiveness, and is therefore a step in the right direction.