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

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

I believe this will be the beginning of the end of abortion on demand in America. The evidence of per-born person-hood is so great that I believe the Supreme Court, with one or two more conservative nominations, would have no choice but to uphold the constitutionality if this law. It is a debate that is long overdue and a debate in which I plan to be very active.

Someone asked, [why was this not done earlier?] The democrats held a majority in congress for more that 30 years. Even with a strong republican majority, the passage of The Right to Life Act of 2005 will be an up hill battle. Some states like to elect fiscal conservatives, but endure or prefer pro-abortion republicans like Chafee, Snowe, Spector, etc.

Our job will be to convince the public and our Congessmen of the validity of the human rights that will be restored under this new law. We will also need to restore in the public mindset, an optimistic picture of American life without abortion. I beleive that the public is way ahead of the politicians with regard to a major shift in abortion policy. It will take a major public push to get politicians to take a major step in the inevitable restoration of human rights in America.

[Got a right to Life? . . Huh?]

GOD BLESS Duncan Hunter! You are a great American. Well done good and faithful servant

[SaltyJoe]

If Congress had a "Right to Life Act" prior to 1973, it would have flown through the voting process and we'd never have had abortions. The hearts of evil men deliberately distracted the nation and the world with nonsensical news and false urgencies.

Given the present mood for infanticide and the demand for such a "right", I calculate the odds of a 2nd American Civil War to be very high should humans now be protected at the moment of conception. If this were rushed, as I figure it will be, we'd have to carefully guard against our neighbors the same way the Balkans erupted into disastrous fratricide.

This too, is a calculated move by the evil one, and it's civil war that the devil wants. The lines against the Natural and the wicked are so tightly defended, and (though not equal) the numbers are still high enough, that those who've always been violent to the unborn will reach for the throats of those who are numerous enough (and growing yet) to change the nation and end genocide. As is stands, evil will go down fighting.

I think it will be a long time coming before we see a Presidential signing of the "Right to Life Act". If it happens sooner, it's because the wicked die off by an Act of God and not by human endeavors. Violence and murder will neither stop abortion nor preserve it.

Could anti-slavery movements have been made state to state without a war? Will God give us such time? Is it in His Mercy to spare the families and communities that protect the unborn, frail, infirm, and elderly?

The devil rules such politics when the hearts of men refuse personhood to the least of our brothers and sisters. If we're not with the Word of God, He will hand us over to sin and Satan.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Hear, hear! I have for years said that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to get rid of abortion once and for all. President Bush better make sure that he names a judicial conservative to replace O'Connor (Miers just doesn't hack it)---maybe Judge Janice Rogers Brown---so that the Supremes don't strike down Hunter's bill if and when it becomes law. But the way that Kennedy has been ruling lately, we may need for President Bush to replace Stevens as well.

[trisham]

bttt

[TxBec]

bookmarking

[Sun]

I thought there were supposed to be THREE branches of government, all equal, but where are the checks and balances?

Our rights have been diluted by unelected judges.

And some of them want to use other countries to decide OUR UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

Instead of interpretting the Constitution, they are CLAIMING the Constitution supports their own personal ideology.

Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However, where is the check on the power of the judiciary? If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny. -- Patrick Henry

[Sun]

While I want President Bush to pick strict Constructionalists anyway, would it matter in this case?

From Post #2 at this thread:

"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]

From http://www.operationrescue.org/?p=281
More details + Contact Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and ask him to schedule hearings on the Right to Life Act of 2005

Right to Life Act of 2005 Urgently Needs Your Attention

Your help is urgently needed to pass the most important piece of federal legislation to be introduced since the criminalization of slavery.

On February 2, 2005, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced the Right to Life Act of 2005 (View Text) which, if passed, would implement the right to life for each born and pre-born human person under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. This legislation would literally STOP abortion in America – all abortion – because the Constitution would guarantee the right to life for the pre-born.

As the current situation now stands, even if Supreme Court Justices were appointed that would overturn Roe v. Wade (and we have serious doubts this will happen), the so-called “right” to an abortion would revert to the control of each state. Some states would certainly outlaw abortion, but many states already have laws on the books to make sure that abortion on demand continues unabated.

That is why control of the Supreme Court, while critically important, is only a partial answer to seeing the scourge of abortion forever removed from our nation.

The Right to Life Act is nothing new to the US Congress. It was introduced yearly by former Rep. Bob Dornan, the firebrand pro-lifer from Orange County, California when he served in Congress in the 1990s. When Dornan was defeated in 1997, Congressman Duncan Hunter of San Diego County agreed to continue to submit this legislation each year, but each year no hearings were scheduled and the bill languished in obscurity and neglect.

However, this year is different.

The culture in America is undergoing a remarkable change and is increasingly uncomfortable with abortion on demand. The Pro-life Movement is especially making great gains among the younger generation, which is more pro-life that ever before. In fact, for the first time in decades, the majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life!

The last presidential election was a water-shed moment in American history when a president was elected primarily by citizens who wanted to see the Supreme Court move to the right and overturn Roe v. Wade. Abortion is “THE” issue in the current debate over the next Supreme Court justice. Americans want and need a public discourse on abortion and the question of when life begins.

With the current debate on abortion surrounding the recent Supreme Court vacancies, more and more people are seeing that the courts are only part of the answer. The document to which all our laws must comply, the U.S. Constitution, must be legally interpreted to clearly and unequivocally protect the lives of pre-born boys and girls.

The Right to Life Act of 2005 would do just that!

Political and cultural conditions are the most favorable they have ever been for legislation that would implement equal protections under the Constitution and restore the legal protections of personhood to the pre-born.

Now is the time to press for the Right to Life Act of 2005.

Currently, the RTL Act is languishing in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. No hearings have been scheduled. Hearings are important because they will open up the national debate about the personhood of the pre-born a debate that is long overdue.

When the Congress held hearings on the partial-birth abortion ban, the entire nation became aware of the heinous nature of late-term abortions. They began to understand that there are some things civilized people JUST DON’T DO. The attitudes of Americans were changed as a result and now the overwhelming majority of our countrymen oppose late-term abortions.

We believe that a similar debate concerning the personhood of the pre-born could further enlighten our nation as to the heinous nature of ALL abortion, and could be the next step in reclaiming the right to life for ALL Americans, regardless of their age or stage of development.

We must get America talking about the personhood of the pre-born and the all-important question of when life begins. This is a debate the abortion lobby fears more than anything because they know it is a debate we will always win!

THIS IS WHERE YOU COME IN!

We are asking you to do three things to help move this live-saving legislation along and open the national debate on the personhood of children in the womb:

• Contact the Congressman from your district and ask him or her to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Right to Life Act of 2005. Currently there are 68 co-sponsors, more than there have ever been! But more are needed to give this bill the kind of respectability that will motivate Congressional action.

Click here to view the current list of co-sponsors.
Click here to contact your representative.

• Contact Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and ask him to schedule hearings on the Right to Life Act of 2005

. Rep. Sensenbrenner is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. It is within his power to schedule hearings or kill this bill through neglect. It is guaranteed that he will not act UNLESS HE HEARS FROM US! Congress has reconvened this week, and all representatives at their Washington DC offices now.

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner:
E-mail: sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov
Phone in Washington DC: (202) 225-5101

• Forward this message to your friends and family and ask them to do the same.

There has never been a better opportunity to pass legal protections for the pre-born that now. We know not everyone can protest against abortion, or drive a Truth Truck, or hold a graphic sign. But everyone CAN and SHOULD make two phone calls or write two e-mails asking for co-sponsorship and hearings for the Right to Life Act of 2005.

Please do not let this bill continue to languish in neglect. If we have to wait until 2006, there is no guarantee conditions will be as favorable.

But most importantly, if we have to wait another year, the lives of 1.3 million innocent children will be needlessly taken by abortion! That’s right. The lives of 1.3 million children (and countless more if this bill is not debated and passed) desperately depend on you and me making a couple of phone calls and sending a couple of e-mails. (After all we’ve been through, how ironic is that!)

Please stop and make your calls and send your messages now!

While you are at it, please call or fax Congressman Duncan Hunter and let him know you appreciate his staunch pro-life efforts. Rep. Hunter is well known to those of us from Southern California and has been kind and courageous enough to speak on behalf of the pre-born at our rallies in past years. Please let him know his efforts are appreciated. He can be reached at (202) 225-5672; FAX: (202) 225-0235.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"While I want President Bush to pick strict Constructionalists anyway, would it matter in this case?"

---

Unfortunately, more than you can imagine. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to legislate for its enforcement because the Reconstruction Congress did not trust courts to enforce the rights conferred by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (i.e., Due Process, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection). This legislative power would thus include the authority to legislate regarding the scope of Section 1. However, the "modern" view of judicial power (also known as the "imperialist" view) claims that only the judicial branch of government may interpret any clause in the Constitution, so a Supreme Court in which an O'Connor is the swing vote would likely rule that Congress may not legislate to include unborn human beings within the coverage of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. We need a strict constructionist, not merely a pro-lifer, to replace O'Connor in the Supreme Court, and given that Kennedy has been wobblier than ever of late we may need an additional strict constructionist to replace Stevens (who may retire soon, although he may try to wait until after the next presidential election in the hopes that a fellow liberal is named to replace him).

[Sun]

Thanks for the info.

I'm learning all the time. :)

[topher]

Welcome back. Hopefully, though you might have fewer trees around, everything else is sort of back to normal.

I know from a friend in Lafayette, LA, that people are looking at any vacant house as a place to move into...

[Sun]

Bump for Life!

See post #69.

[Coleus]

bttt

[.30Carbine]

bump