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

[hocndoc]

English common law was not the only reason given in Roe v. Wade. They used amphibian embryology, Thomas Aquinas, and ancient Greek ideas, too. Oh, and there were no laws (for or against) in early America - you remember, that nation that had legalized slavery and no female sufferage.

None of which have anything to do with what we know about human embryology.

It is appropriate, don't you think, that increased evidence should affect legislation?

[GloriaJane]

What a wonderful thing! I pray this bill is passed.

[cpforlife.org]

Please see:
A BRIEF SURVEY OF US ABORTION LAW BEFORE THE 1973 DECISION
http://cpforlife.org/id139.htm

[cpforlife.org]

Abortion Statutes of the 19th & 20th Centuries
http://www.missourilife.org/law/preroe.htm
During the first decades of the 1800's, scientists began to understand the cellular basis of life and for the first time were able to observe the process of fertilization in mammals. As the stages of development became clear, it also became clear that abortion kills a living human being, no matter what the stage of the child's development. The resulting scientific knowledge about the process of conception and development led to efforts to enact stronger bans on abortion. In addition, scientific progress allowed for surgical means of performing abortion, and abortion was perceived to be on the increase. Beginning in 1859, the American Medical Association called for strong anti-abortion laws and vigorous enforcement of them. In view of the claim by twentieth century abortionists that physicians did this only to protect their own profession or solely to protect women's health, it is useful to quote the doctors themselves on why they wanted action by the states:

The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime--a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.

The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life; . . .

The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.

* * * *

In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child; . . .13

The AMA adopted the recommendation described above and sponsored initiatives in all states, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion that swept away the "quickening" distinction.14 In the remaining states, abortion remained prohibited by common law. In no state was abortion legal in the nineteenth century or for most of the twentieth century, except to save the life of the mother.15

In the 1960's, calls for loosening abortion restrictions began. In the five years from 1967 through 1972, thirteen states adopted a model statute proposed by the American Law Institute which allowed abortions for certain limited periods upon the certification of doctors that abortion was medically necessary.16 In four states, statutes were enacted which allowed abortion for any reason but only until a certain point in the pregnancy.17 New York's 1970 law was considered the most radical of these because it allowed abortion for almost any reason through the 24th week of the child's development. In 1972, the New York Legislature tried to repeal the law, but the repeal was vetoed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller.18 After New York enacted its law, the drive for loose abortion laws sputtered. Such laws were rejected by over 30 state legislatures and approved in only one more, Florida. In the fall of 1972, just less than three months before the Roe v. Wade decision, the people of two states, North Dakota and Michigan, rejected ballot measures for looser abortion laws by majorities of 77% and 61% respectively.19 Efforts to loosen abortion laws may have continued had the U. S. Supreme Court not interfered with the democratic process in 1973, but the momentum had passed to the pro-life opponents of such laws.

In accord with the spirit of the 1960's, pro-abortionists sought to have the courts change social policy when legislatures would not change it fast enough to suit them. Lawsuits were filed to declare existing abortion laws unconstitutional.20 Two of these lawsuits culminated in the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Together, those two decisions decreed the abortion laws of all 50 states unconstitutional, including the new laws described above, because they did not allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy if a physician was willing to do the procedure.

What this means is that before Roe v. Wade in 1973, the legality of abortion in the U. S. essentially rested with the legislatures of the several states. However, in 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that abortion was a constitutional right. This ruling turned abortion into an issue of federal constitutional law, the contours of which could only be determined by lawsuit after lawsuit. From then on, the law of abortion depended on the decisions of federal courts in lawsuits brought by abortionists and their defenders.

The abortions decisions of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts are summarized in the article, "Current Law of Abortion." In order to understand the cases, readers who are not lawyers may want to review the process of constitutional adjudication on the page, "General Background of Abortion Lawsuits."

[narses]

+

[marsh_of_mists]

Hold it, hold it! Are they saying that we were fighting tooth and nail for 30+ years to restructure the Supreme Court, partially so it would overturn Roe v Wade, when all we had to do to change it was railroad a piece of legislation through Congress???? I don't believe that; something is missing here. If it had been this simple someone would have come up with the idea decades ago. It might be a nice symbolic gesture, but I can't imagine that, legally, it would actually change anything.

[Sun]

Thank you for that wonderful news.

Now it's time for us to get busy and contact our U.S. senators and reps, and write letters to editors to ask others to do the same.

Catholicpress.org is a good place for Catholics to go to find e-mails for all Catholic diocesan newspapers, and some nondiocesan newspapers, in the country, and write those letters to editors.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

Thank you for your post... I was about to fish up that information, but you did it for me.


I find this portion of the legislation particularly important:

"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."
~ People on another thread seemed to think I was delusional for maintaining that certain methods of birth control act as abortifacients, and that my "wild ideas" were shared by no one. This act proves otherwise. Babies are precious no matter how young and tiny they are!

[DJ MacWoW]

People on another thread seemed to think I was delusional for maintaining that certain methods of birth control act as abortifacients, and that my "wild ideas" were shared by no one. This act proves otherwise

The problem is that they've never been told how some contraception works so they assume it all prevents conception.

I once explained to someone exactly what a partial birth abortion was. She called me a liar. Then she did some research.

[Sun]

I'm surprised Ron Paul's name isn't there. I thought he was pro-life.

[Lexinom]

Blessing and benediction on Rep. Duncan Hunter for his compassion for the weak and voiceless. May this effort find a foothold in hearts not yet too stony to care anymore.

[Sun]

I can't understand how after President Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion, not even one baby has been saved from partial birth infanticide.

Every judge in the country can't be an activist judge.

Can someone explain this to me?

[md2576]

This law would be fantastic.

I must make an admission.

My girlfriend of three months got pregnant...wait I got her pregnant.

Anyways, after knowing her for only three months and I and her were very young, I thought it best she have an abortion.

Thank the good Lord above she had more sense than I did.

My son is one of the two most beautiful things in my life and in this world in my opinion. We had a little girls two years later. We are not together anymore and I don't get to live with my children full time, but since I have had children I am totally against abortion and killing fertilized embryos for research.

Granted we didn't have brains to be having unprotected sex but that's no reason to kill my son and daughter.

There names are Zaine and Kendra. 4 yr. and 6 yr. old

They are not little masses of tissue not yet formed into a human. They are, and will always, be my children and my favorite gift from God.

[Sun]

"....A bill such as this might make someone consider adoption or contraceptive...."

There are so many couples who want to adopt, and a baby would bring so much joy in their lives, and more importantly the babies would live.

As for contraception, a birth control pill could cause an abortion, if conception takes place.

Many religious and secular people use Natural Family Planning, and it is just as effective as the birth control pill.

[cpforlife.org]

"I'm surprised Ron Paul's name isn't there. I thought he was pro-life."

Ron Paul is an outstanding Pro-Lifer and also an obstetrician. He is one of the very finest defenders of the Constitution alive today. He has introduced many bills to end abortion so I'm sure there is a good reason his name isn't there.

[cpforlife.org]

God bless you.

[bethtopaz]

With all due respect (and I mean that) we must educate people that adoption is truly the loving option. A woman can give up nine months of her life to GIVE that life to someone who is deeply desiring and praying daily for a child, and yet, cannot bear a child. Abortion is taking a life; adoption is giving a life.

In 1988 I gave my Down Syndrome baby, Rachel, to a wonderful adoptive mother who had a Masters in Special Ed and before she met me and Rachel, was praying that God would give her a baby girl with Down Syndrome -- and she wanted to name her Rachel.

[bethtopaz]

That's beautiful. Thank you for sharing it.

[md2576]

That's beautiful. Thank you for sharing it.

Thank You. It is absolutely my pleasure. I only wish I could share with kids like I was.

If this law passes I believe many kids would be a lot more careful instead of thinking there's a quick fix "just in case".