The Right to Life Act of 2005

righttolifeact.org ^ | October 12, 2005

[cpforlife.org]

Congressman Duncan Hunter (CA)
THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA, http://www.house.gov/hunter/) and other members of Congress have introduced the Right to Life Act of 2005. The bill recognizes unborn children as persons under the Constitution of the United States. This legislation is important because the basis of Roe v Wade rests on the assumption that unborn babies are not persons. As part of the Roe v Wade decision the Court stated, "If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." The "Amendment" the Court refers to is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which holds that no State shall, "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..." If passed by the House and Senate it would end the abortion industry as we know it in the United States. http://rfcnet.org/news/default.asp?action=detail&article=302

In His Own Words...
"Today I am introducing legislation that, if passed, will once and for all protect our unborn children from harm. Over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children -- born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.

"In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, 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 be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment." Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.

"The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution:
1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life;
2. Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision 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 I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.

"This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort."

Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
http://www.house.gov/hunter/righttolife03.html

---

And, also...
"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 introducing the Right to Life Act of 2005. 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 (Section 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life;
2. Section 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 of 2005 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."

Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress
MS-WORD: http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Hunter--life.doc

Text of the Right to Life Act
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. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Right to Life Act.'

SECTION 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:

(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING - The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

(2) STATE - The term 'State' used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

http://www.marchtogether.com/hr552RightToLifeBill.htm
PDF: http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Hunter--lifetext.pdf

Frequently Asked Questions...

Why Should Pro-Lifers support the Right to Life Act of 2005?
The Right to Life Act is the only legislation that will stop abortion dead in its tracks. By stating in unequivocal terms that a baby is a person from the moment of fertilization, Congress would be taking back its authority to pass laws that are necessary and proper for maintaining a society rooted in ordered liberty. Legislating from the bench will only come to an end when legislators are willing to discharge their duties and enact legislation that reflects a proper understanding of science and our fundamental moral beliefs. Until legislators take action on these fundamental issues, the Supreme Court will fill the space left by Congress and impose the views of a few elite and unelected judges upon every citizen. The Right to Life Act is the only game plan that aims for a victory -- one that will not sacrifice any of our young.

What about the life of the mother?
Most laws prohibiting or restricting abortion make allowances for pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother. However, thanks to modern medicine, abortion is never necessary to protect women's lives. We base this statement on testimony of many physicians over the years. Conditions do exists, however, where life-saving treatment of a mother unfortunately results in the death of a preborn child. These treatments, though, are legally and morally not considered abortion. One may ask at this point: if there are no cases where a woman's life is threatened by pregnancy, what harm could come from a ‘life of the mother' exception? The harm comes in the creative interpretation abortionists give to such an exception, which then opens the door for such abortions to be performed despite the fact that they are unnecessary.

What are chances of this bill becoming law?
The 109th Congress and the White House appear more receptive to pro-life legislation now. Furthermore, the makeup of the Supreme Court may become less pro-abortion when some judges retire and are replaced. Medical technology now shows us preborn babies sucking their thumbs and smiling on 4D ultrasounds. One has to ask: if we don't outlaw abortion now, then when? Even if you believe there is no chance of this bill becoming law, wouldn't it be great to lift the veil of silence on abortion and have Congress hold hearings on personhood, where a strong case could be made for those who can't speak for themselves?

Will the Right to Life Act outlaw contraception?
The Right to Life Act would protect preborns from being terminated for any reason. One of the most common reasons why preborns never get the chance to live a natural life is that they are aborted by contraceptives that are designed to cause early abortions. These contraceptives are better defined as abortifacients, since far from preventing conception, they allow the creation of a unique human person and then destroy them by preventing them from following their natural course of development. The Right to Life Act recognizes that a person exists from the moment of conception and therefore any willful ending of that life should be treated like any other instance where one person takes another's life.

Why do some pro-life organizations oppose this bill?
Some Pro-life groups believe that despite the dismal record of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade through gradualism, there is a chance now to change the heart and minds of more people. These groups believe in appeasing the evil of abortion through the introduction of legislation that acknowledges to right to take the life of a preborn child but tries to minimize the harm that abortion is causing. While trying to minimize evil is a laudable objective, it is high time that we look in the mirror and see that abortion advocates have not been moved an inch by gradual approaches to ending abortion.

Would this legislation actually overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes, it would. Few people realize that Roe v. Wade shows us the way to its own downfall. The key passage, written by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, states in unequivocal terms: “If personhood is established, the case for legalized abortion collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." (Roe v. Wade, Majority Decision, Section IX) The pro-life movement keeps trying to make believe that it can work within the framework of Roe v. Wade, gradually chipping away at abortion. At the same time, the number of victims of abortion keeps climbing and well-intentioned laws are struck down time after time by the monolith of Roe v. Wade. The Right to Life Act faces the reality that the wall of abortion is still intact. Roe v. Wade itself offers us the key to bring down abortion, that key is personhood, and the Congress has ample room under our Constitution to define it to include the unborn.

What can I do to help?
You can make all the difference. The most important thing you can do is to let as many people as possible know about this bill, and then have them call their Senators and Representatives. Unless the people speak up, leaders will take the path of least resistance instead of the road less traveled. If you are a Christian, you should pray to end abortion. Nothing is impossible with God.

http://www.righttolifeact.org/html/faq.html

[cpforlife.org]

 

The Right to Life Act 2005

CONGRESS
The Right to Life Act has been sponsored in the US House of Representatives. Below is a list of representatives co-sponsoring the bill. Use it to thank the representatives for c0-sponsoring the Right to Life Act 2005. If your representative is not co-sponsoring the bill, be sure to contact them and let them know why they ought to support it.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (CA) Primary Sponsor Rep. Akin, Todd (MO) Rep. Bartlett, Roscoe G. (MD) Rep. Beauprez, Bob (CO) Rep. Chabot, Steve (OH) Rep Conaway, K. Michael (TX) Rep. Davis, Geoff (KY) Rep. Davis, Jo Ann (VA) Rep. Doolittle, John T. (CA) Rep. Feeney, Tom (FL) Rep. Foxx, Virginia (NC) Rep. Franks, Trent (AZ) Rep. Garrett, Scott (NJ) Rep. Gingrey, Phil (GA) Rep. Green, Mark (WI) Rep. Hall, Ralph M. (TX) Rep. Hayes, Robin (NC) Rep. Hart, Melissa A. (PA) Rep. Hensarling, Jeb (TX) Rep. Herger, Wally (CA) Rep. Hoekstra, Peter (MI) Rep. Hostettler, John N. (IN) Rep. Hyde, Henry (IL) Rep. Inglis, Bob (SC) Rep. Johnson, Sam (TX) Rep. Johnson, Timothy (IL) Rep. Jones, Walter B. Jr. (NC) Rep. King, Steve (IA) Rep. Kingston, Jack (GA) Rep. Kline, John (MN) Rep. LaHood, Ray (IL) Rep. Lewis, Ron (KY) Rep. Manzullo, Donald A. (IL) Rep. McCaul, Michael (TX)

Rep. McCotter, Thaddeus G. (MI) Rep. McHenry, Patrick (NC) Rep. Mica, John L. (FL) Rep Miller, Candice S. (MI) Rep. Miller, Gary G. (CA) Rep. Miller, Jeff (FL) Rep. Musgrave, Marilyn N. (CO) Rep. Myrick, Sue (NC) Rep. Neugebauer, Randy (TX) Rep. Ney, Robert W. (OH) Rep. Norwood, Charles (GA) Rep. Pearce, Steven (NM) Rep. Peterson, Collin (MN) Rep. Petri, Thomas (WI) Rep. Pence, Mike (IN) Rep. Pitts, Joseph R. (PA) Rep. Price, Tom (GA) Rep. Renzi, Rick (AZ) Rep. Rogers, Michael J. (MI) Rep. Ryun, Jim (KS) Rep. Sessions, Pete (TX) Rep. Shimkus, John (IL) Rep. Smith, Christopher (NJ) Rep. Souder, Mark E. (IN) Rep. Tancredo, Thomas G. (CO) Rep. Taylor, Charles H. (NC) Rep. Tiahrt, Todd (KS) Rep. Wamp, Zach (TN) Rep. Westmoreland, Lynn A. (GA) Rep. Whitfield, Ed (KY) Rep. Wicker, Roger (MS) Rep. Wilson, Joe (SC)

If your Representative is not listed or you do know know who your representative is, use the search here and contact them.

[cpforlife.org]

Please spread the word.

Would this legislation actually overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes, it would. Few people realize that Roe v. Wade shows us the way to its own downfall. The key passage, written by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, states in unequivocal terms: “If personhood is established, the case for legalized abortion collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." (Roe v. Wade, Majority Decision, Section IX) The pro-life movement keeps trying to make believe that it can work within the framework of Roe v. Wade, gradually chipping away at abortion. At the same time, the number of victims of abortion keeps climbing and well-intentioned laws are struck down time after time by the monolith of Roe v. Wade. The Right to Life Act faces the reality that the wall of abortion is still intact. Roe v. Wade itself offers us the key to bring down abortion, that key is personhood, and the Congress has ample room under our Constitution to define it to include the unborn.

[cpforlife.org]

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[ANGGAPO]

The thing that bothers me about reversing R/W is the number of dead bodies that will follow. Most people don't remember the number of "Back Alley Abortions" that occurred back then, but I do. This is the down side because it invites the unqualified medical hack to open a chop shop.

[MHGinTN]

So, there should be no laws outlawing murder, because it will not stop murderers? Try again ... and I must say it was astonishing to read your post ... how old must one be, how much must one be able to remember to find killing innocent human beings ... acceptable because it was done in the past?

[MHGinTN]

BTW, "The thing that bothers me about reversing R/W is the number of dead bodies that will follow" ... is forty-million already slaughtered to be ignored?

[old and tired]

I was alive then too, and I don't remember any women dead from back alley abortions.

I have heard it was less than a dozen a year. The lives of those 12 women aren't worthless - we prolifers will continue to work to help them so they don't feel killing their baby is their only choice.

[two134711]

Very well put.

[no dems]

I have copied and pasted this entire post and e-mailed it to my GOP Congressman, Kevin Brady (R-TX).

Why didn't someone do this sooner? Anyone care to take a stab at the chances of it passing both Houses?

[tortoise]

The reason a fetus is not a legal person now is because the English Common Law that is the basis of our legal system does not recognize a fetus as such. Indeed, in the first semester the Common Law does not recognize it as an entity separate from the mother for any legal purpose (in the second semester it has a provisional legal standing as chattel).

Some people act as if treating a fetus in the first semester as nothing of value or legal standing is a new concept foisted on us by liberals. In fact, it has been a part of the legal tradition our country is based on for thousands of years. The idea of treating a fetus as an entity with legal standing is modern invention. Not a value judgment, just an observation that puts this matter into context.

[no dems]

Oh yeah? Well, why don't you tell us the number of Back Alley Abortions performed "back then"? I'm appalled at your comments in your post. A bill such as this might make someone consider adoption or contraceptive because they can no longer use the abortion clinic as a means of birth control.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!

[Former Fetus]

it invites the unqualified medical hack to open a chop shop

You don't believe that legal abortions are always safe, do you? The evidence points out that "unqualified medical hacks" are in business regardless of whether abortion is legal or not... the only difference is that with legal abortion they have more business.

It is also important to point out that it was not legalizing abortion that diminished the number of abortion deaths, rather it was the widespread use of antibiotics. The number of abortion deaths had gone down significantly before Roe vs. Wade.

[no dems]

And, we need verifiable information to substantiate your "numbers".

[MHGinTN]

Just an observation, to put your post in context: You offered, "it has been a part of the legal tradition our country is based on for thousands of years,", but that ignores the tremendous gains in medical understanding we've achieved. Do you believe there is a living human being in the womb? science confirms there is, but that won't stop those deadset on protecting a court consigned right to kill them as if they are non-humans, don'tchaknow.

[MHGinTN]

Thanx for the ping, brother.

[DJ MacWoW]

Most people don't remember the number of "Back Alley Abortions" that occurred back then, but I do.

Then you have a faulty memory because it was all a lie.

How lying marketers sold Roe v. Wade to America

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

More interesting truth.

"Another myth we fed to the public through the media was that legalizing abortion would only mean that the abortions taking place illegally would then be done legally. In fact, of course, abortion is now being used as a primary method of birth control in the U.S. and the annual number of abortions has increased by 1,500 percent since legalization."

[hocndoc]

The 'back alley' abortionist was usually a doctor or a nurse. There were never nearly as many back alley abortions as there are legal abortions today. Today, we have much better contraceptives available. Back when condoms and the diaphragm were about the only choices, the high end of estimates for abortions was less than 10% of women - now it's estimated that 1 in 4 babies, for over 30% of women obtain abortions. Some more than once. And 1.3 million of our children die each year.

From the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research and education wing of Planned Parenthood:

Estimates of the number of illegal abortions in the 1950s and 1960s ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. One analysis, extrapolating from data from North Carolina, concluded that an estimated 829,000 illegal or self-induced abortions occurred in 1967.

One stark indication of the prevalence of illegal abortion was the death toll. In 1930, abortion was listed as the official cause of death for almost 2,700 women—nearly one-fifth (18%) of maternal deaths recorded in that year. The death toll had declined to just under 1,700 by 1940, and to just over 300 by 1950 (most likely because of the introduction of antibiotics in the 1940s, which permitted more effective treatment of the infections that frequently developed after illegal abortion). By 1965, the number of deaths due to illegal abortion had fallen to just under 200, but illegal abortion still accounted for 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth that year. And these are just the number that were officially reported; the actual number was likely much higher.

Poor women and their families were disproportionately impacted. A study of low-income women in New York City in the 1960s found that almost one in 10 (8%) had ever attempted to terminate a pregnancy by illegal abortion; almost four in 10 (38%) said that a friend, relative or acquaintance had attempted to obtain an abortion. Of the low-income women in that study who said they had had an abortion, eight in 10 (77%) said that they had attempted a self-induced procedure, with only 2% saying that a physician had been involved in any way.

These women paid a steep price for illegal procedures. In 1962 alone, nearly 1,600 women were admitted to Harlem Hospital Center in New York City for incomplete abortions, which was one abortion-related hospital admission for every 42 deliveries at that hospital that year. In 1968, the University of Southern California Los Angeles County Medical Center, another large public facility serving primarily indigent patients, admitted 701 women with septic abortions, one admission for every 14 deliveries.

[cpforlife.org]

You bet Marvin. How are you doing?

[Tzimisce]

I'd love to see this bill passed.

Realistically, I think it will be DOA (aborted?) in the Senate.

[MHGinTN]

Discovering more about my limitations every day! Et tu, brother?