Skip to comments.Steve King Calling for Life Begins at Conception Act
Posted on 01/12/2008 8:19:46 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
I received a phone call with a message from Steve King, and while at first I thought he would be asking me to support Fred Thompson, it turned out he was trying to get support for the Life Begins at Conception Act.
Here is information from the Pro-Life alliance about the act, which was submitted in January of 2007 by Duncan Hunter:
A Frontal Assault on Roe v. Wade
For more than thirty years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.
The result has been a brutal holocaust that has claimed the lives of more than 45 million innocent and helpless unborn children in America.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation's throat.
As a result, many pro-lifers resigned themselves to protecting a life here and there -- passing laws which slightly control abortion in the most outrageous cases. And other pro-life organizations always tiptoed around the Supreme Court, hoping they wouldn't be offended.
Life at Conception Act Follows the High Court's Instructions To Define When Life Begins
Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.
Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.
A simple majority vote is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.
When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.
Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.
Instead the Supreme Court said:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
Life at Conception Act Would Dismantle Roe
Then the High Court made a key admission:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.
A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.
National Pro-Life Alliance members have led the fight to end abortion-on-demand by passing a Life at Conception Act. They have generated over 1.5 million petitions to Congress to date urging lawmakers to cosponsor and fight for passage pf a Life at Conception Act.
Fight to Overturn Roe v. Wade Heats Up in House
Those continued efforts have led to ever-increasing support for a Life at Conception Act in Congress. Representative Duncan Hunter's (R-CA) Life at Conception Act [H.R. 618] was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2007, with a record 64 original cosponsors.
Members of the National Pro-Life Alliance are lobbying hard to gain a record number of cosponsors for a Life at Conception Act.
An up or down vote on a Life at Conception Act will put politicians on record either for or against ending abortion-on-demand.
Pro-lifers are urged to call (202) 224-3121 and insist that their Congressmen cosponsor Duncan Hunter's H.R. 618 today.
Life Begins at Conception Act:
The phone call suggested there was a petition online, but I don't know if it's the same one from 2002. That petition can be found HERE, but there are only 645 signatures.
They are talking about a national petition drive to get a million signatures. Thy guy gave me a web site he said I could get the petition, but it just linked to the pro-life-alliance site above, and I couldn't easily find a petition from there.
Anyway, it's nice to see that Steve King, Duncan Hunter, and some others are not putting all their marbles on a reversal of Roe. I know that even if this passes, it would be a miracle if the current court accepted it, but miracles do happen.
I also know that some people don't support making life begin at conception, because that would mean states wouldn't be allowed to let people kill babies, even if those babies father was related to the mother, or had forced himself on the mother.
But for the true pro-lifers, this is another way to raise awareness, and to emphasize that the REASON abortion is wrong is because it is murder, and if abortion is murder, we cannot "leave it to the states", or define exceptions because of the transgressions or lineage of the parents.
We still must elect a President who will appoint good judges, and for that we don't require purity of belief -- but compromise necessary to elect representatives should not stand in the way of our advocating for the RIGHT position, even if it conflicts with the people we are supporting.
It is obvious that Steve King understands this principle, if you look at who he has endorsed, while making phone calls for this act which would end all abortion everywhere.
My candidate is also flawed on this point, favoring some abortions (although he does support the Human Life amendment), but that does not stop me from saying he is wrong about abortion for rape and incest.
From the article: Those continued efforts have led to ever-increasing support for a Life at Conception Act in Congress. Representative Duncan Hunter’s (R-CA) Life at Conception Act [H.R. 618] was introduced in the House of Representatives on the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, January 22, 2007, with a record 64 original cosponsors.
Hunter, ALWAYS ahead of the rest. IIRC, this is not the first year Hunter has introduced this.
And he’s out there every day doing the job.
(can only be linked)
Hunter: NATO slacking off in Afghanistan
Friday Jan 11, 2008
Also, I found the web site, it was ".com", not ".org":
Life Begins At Conception. It doesn't mention the petition either.
Interesting post there, CW.
The Steven King endorsement surprised me.
I am all in favor of something to stop the cultural suicide.
Another good reason to support this good man.
Steve doing a bit of penance for supporting a candidate who thinks states’ rights trump unalienable rights?
This is the straight truth live begins with Conception and FRED could support that trying to in a first time to undermine Roe/Wade and limiting its effects...
He would have more support from evangelists still speaking sensible words about moral education,family,but facing the reallity of unwanted pregnancies the hard reallity of today’s society
I don’t think American Life League will be joining the effort. They espouse that life begins at fertilization.
Hunter is probably more pro-life than Huckabee, who’s getting so much mileage from his steadfast position.
And then when we contrast Hunter to Thompson, we see Thompson wanting to take a federalist approach. No one would take a federalist approach to baby killing, so it is a sign that Fred simpy doesn’t want to deal with it.
Open Letter to the South Carolina GOP Duncan Hunter is the Only Choice
Dissembling. While Mitt Romney has given his explanation for how & when he switched from pro-choice to pro-life, you will not find a similar explanation from Mr. Thompson. In fact, he falsely says he was always pro-life. That is patently untrue, as all of his public statements and survey answers showed he was indeed pro-choice at least through the late1990s. Granted, he always supported certain restrictions, at least after the first trimester. But his direct quotes such as The ultimate decision must be made by the woman. Government should treat its citizens as adults capable of making moral decisions on their own are proof positive he was pro-choice. And his answers about his role in McCain Feingold have been equally evasive and disingenuous at best. CFR is every bit as much his baby as it is McCains or Feingolds, with the worst part the prohibition of independent issue ads before an election receiving his full sponsorship and support. It appears that his straight talk is similar to that of McCains.
Stop worshiping at the altar of the Republican party and start supporting candidates that are principled men and women that actually believe what they are campaigning on. Trust me, it will make you feel better.
Duncan Hunter has been quietly but consistently defending innocent human life for decades. It’s high time he got credit for it!
Well if life begins at conception (of course we really mean something more than mere "life", a turnip is alive) which of my identical twin granddaughters is not "alive"? The split that results in identical twins occurs a few days, as much as a week, after conception. Any later and you get conjoined twins. Which they are not. They are different sizes though. My speculation is that the split was not even, and the little one got a smaller share, resulting in her being a week or so behind the big one. One truly interesting feature is that one of them, the larger one, had the usual two umbilical arteries, but the little one only had one, just like their older sister had. How that happens with identical genes is a bit of a mystery. Thankfully, both the little twin, and their big sister seem to have no significant complications from the SUA.
Thank you for posting this!
Duncan Hunter has sponsored, introduced, and given speeches about this on the house floor for the past ten years-ever since Dornan lost his seat and asked his good friend, whom he knew to be prolife, to carry this particular torch.
In addition, Hunter has defended the disabled, opposed embryonic stem cell research, and every other kind of Frankenstein action against humanity.
What have the other guys actually done to end this slaughter?
January 22, 2007_________________________________________
Duncan Hunter, MC
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Introduction of the Right to Life Act
One of the most fascinating and popular shows on television today, In the Womb on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero. Watching these babies suck their thumbs, smile and cry has led many to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child. For many years now, I have introduced an important piece of legislation that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as elected leaders of this great nation; protecting our unborn children from harm. I am proud to once again be introducing the Right to Life Act and I am optimistic of its future.
Unfortunately, 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. Mr. Speaker, 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) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 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 and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.
The courts were not given the power to enforce the 14th Amendment, so if Congress believes that an unborn baby has the right to life under the 14th amendment, then Congress has the power to pass laws protecting the unborn. The Courts would have no constitutional authority to overturn such a law.
This law might result in a constitutional showdown, but then, maybe it's time we had one.
Duncan Hunter is smart. I look forward to the day when I can apply that adjective to a majority the GOP electorate.
They get so caught up in the race and who is ahead and who the media “thinks” has a chance, that they allow the media and others to distort and/or define the “finish line”. They choose champions for their causes who have never taken up the sword and fought for that cause. Their reliance is upon empty words soon to become broken promises and cowardice disguised as compromise. They speak of reality as reason, but will refuse to own that reality after the deed is done. Try to find a Californian who voted for Arnie and that should leave nothing to doubt.
Here is Congressman Hunter’s Dear Colleague letter:
LAST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT”
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 mothers 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 countrys 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 reintroducing the Right to Life Act, which had over 100 cosponsors in the 109th Congress, on January 22nd. 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 (Sec. 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life; 2) Sec. 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 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. To become an original cosponsor of this important legislation, please contact Michael Harrison in my office at x55672 or at firstname.lastname@example.org, by 12:00 noon on Monday, January 22nd.
Member of Congress
Current Cosponsors: C. Smith, Hayes, G. Davis, McCaul, Franks, T. Johnson, McMorris, Sessions, Cannon, Wamp, Westmoreland, Renzi, Norwood, H. Rogers, J. Wilson, Boustany, Bishop, G. Miller, Herger, Alexander, Manzullo, Cubin, J. Davis, Inglis, McCotter, L. Davis, Forbes, Souder, R. Hall, Musgrave, Pickering, Chabot, Boozman, S. Johnson, Conaway, Bartlett, D. Davis, Tiahrt, Myrick, Fortuno, Akin, Dootlittle, Gingrey, LaHood, Hoekstra, Adrian Smith, Foxx, Sali, R. Lewis, Terry, Pitts, Tancredo
Fred did not promote this act while he was a senator. Why not?
You’re on the mark.
We have, or are supposed to have, three co-equal branches of government, so it’s time we put to rest the destructive judicial supremacist notion that only one has a right and a duty to interpret the Constitution.
That unconstitutional belief makes the oath the Executive and every member of the Legislative branch takes utterly meaningless.
That unconstitutional belief is destroying our free republic, as well as the lives of at least three thousand tiny persons in the womb each and every day.
Here is the act:
1ST SESSION H. R. 618
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.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 22, 2007
Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS
of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JOHNSON
of Illinois, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CANNON,
Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. RENZI, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ROGERS
of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr.
BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr.
ALEXANDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia,
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LINCOLN
DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas,
Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.
DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TIAHRT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORTUNO,
Mr. AKIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. HOEKSTRA,
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SALI, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky,
Mr. TERRY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. JORDAN of
Ohio, Mr. GOODE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr.
SHADEGG, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr.
CARTER, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
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.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6652 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
HR 618 IH
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the Right to Life Act.
5 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
6 To implement equal protection for the right to life
7 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant
8 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con9
gress power under article I, section 8, to make necessary
10 and proper laws, and Congress power under section 5 of
11 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
12 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right
13 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each
14 human being.
15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
16 For purposes of this Act:
17 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.The
18 terms human person and human being include
19 each and every member of the species homo sapiens
20 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the
21 moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at
22 which an individual member of the human species
23 comes into being.
24 (2) STATE.The term State used in the
25 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
HR 618 IH
1 United States and other applicable provisions of the
2 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the
3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri4
tory or possession of the United States.
My candidate, Dr. Alan Keyes, has been a tireless campaigner for the innocent unborn, and their Fourteenth Amendment rights as persons.
On my homepage is a pdf document that, in my opinion, every conservative should read. (Duncan Hunter supporters should read pages four and five very carefully.)
I’m not sure who either of you support but I have seen you on countless pro-life threads. I just wanted you to know that, I, for one appreciate your contributions, your advocacies and relentless fight against this inherent evil. My little bit of appreciation and encouragement for what little it’s worth. :)
What possible other time could life begin if not at conception? Does anyone ask, how long after the big bang did the universe begin?
It sounds like a no-brainer to me. However, the issue is not when did life begin; the issue is when did abortion become the constitutional business of the federal government?
Thank you. I join you in thanking all of those who don’t compromise in the cause of restoring legal protection for the unalienable rights to life and liberty for all.
Fertilization IS conception. Conception IS fertilization. Any distinction between the two is an invention of the pro-abortion movement. They have worked hard to redefine “conception” as implantation.
I know Dr. Keyes has spoken eloquently, and consistently, about life. I was referring to those candidates who had opportunities to take action while in office, but did not.
I know. Thanks.
Thank you. You are very gracious.
The Constitution is absolutely concerned with life. You made some excellent points that we are indeed talking about a life. If a life then that life should be protected by our constitution. The line was already crossed when the Constitution was used to deny this life it’s inalienable rights. A law recognizing that life as life, does no disservice to the several states nor the constitution.
It most certainly is.
The Constitution's purpose, according to the Constitution:
"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.
Not really. If that is the case, then why not just call it conception? The way they describe fertilization in their literature seems to imply that first there is conception, then fertilization. They are using the term fertilization because it is what the AMA calls it. It is very misleading.
By not calling it conception, it could cause one to conclude that there are two different times in contention for the beginning of life: conception and fertilization.
I don’t know if you’re Catholic or not, but we Catholics have always called it the Immaculate Conception, not the Immaculate Fertilization.
To begin with, since the federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, the 10th A. automatically reserves government power to address abortion to the state governments.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.So what happened to the 10th A. when the Court decided Roe v. Wade? Indeed the Roe v. Wade opinion doesn't even mention the 10th Amendment.
Sadly, FDR unwittingly gave the federal government the license to ignore the 10th A. when he established his New Deal federal spending programs. This came about because, regardless of FDR's oath to defend the Constitution, his ideas actually showed that he did not understand the Constitution, particularly the Founder's requirement that all federal powers be enumerated in the Constitution. Enumerated powers were not only smart because they limited the powers of the federal government in general, but also because they limited federal government spending, a stumbling block for FDR and his New Deal programs.
FDR needed to rally the states to amend the Constitution to essentially add his federal spending programs, such as SS, to Sec. 8 of Article I in compliance with the 10th Amendment. Instead, FDR made public his plans to stack the Supreme Court to establish his programs, the Constitution be damned. Again, FDR was a constitutional flunky.
Sadly, constitutional flunky justices on the Supreme Court would ultimately use FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to further erode 10th A. protected state powers. And if you want some examples...
Justice Owen Roberts, a Hoover-nominated RINO, expressed his politically correct understanding of the relationship of the 14th A. to the 1st A. in the Cantwell opinion as follows.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87cThe problem with Justice Roberts' "profound insight" into the 1st and 14th Amendments is that he outrageously misrepresented the intentions of John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment. This is because Bingham had clarified, both before and after the ratification of the 14th A., that the 14th A. was not intended to take away any state's rights. See for yourself.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dAnd after Justice Roberts got finished using FDR's license to ignore the 10th A. to misrepresent John Bingham's ideas about the 14th A., Justice Black, a "former" Klansman and FDR appointed justice, used FDR's license to misrepresent the ideas of Thomas Jefferson concerning c&s separation.
"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
Indeed, despite that Justice Black wanted everybody to think that Jefferson's "wall of separation" somehow meant that the establishment clause was intended to be applied to the states, Jefferson had acknowledged that the Founders had written the 1st and 10th Amendments in part to reserve government power to address religious issues uniquely to the state governments. In fact, Jefferson had done so on at least three occasions. Again, see for yourself.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo
"In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it; but have left them as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:378 http://tinyurl.com/jmpm3
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. http://tinyurl.com/nkdu7
So by quoting Jefferson to help justify his scandalous interpretation of the establishment clause, Justice Black actually quoted probably the worst possible person that he could have quoted to help justify his dirty work.
Are we having fun yet? :^)
As a side note, consider that neither the Cantwell or Everson opinions contain any reference to the 10th A. protected powers of the states to address religious issues (corrections welcome). Corrupt, secular-minded justices evidently regarded the religious aspect of the 10th A. as too much of a loose canon to bring attention to. In fact, with the exception of Jones v. Opelika, 1942, Supreme Court cases where 10th A. protected powers of the states were weighed against FDR's New Deal programs are the last time that the 10th A. was mentioned in state power related Court opinions. In fact, it's no surprise that the Roe v. Wade opinion contains no reference to the 10th Amendment (corrections welcome).
About Roe v. Wade...
Given that the USSC thought that it had the license to use Jefferson's "wall of separation" from a mere, private letter help justify its scandalous interpretation of the scope of the establishment clause in the Everson opinion, surely the Court should have used Jefferson's "all men are created equal" from the Declaration of Independence to help justify finding the rights of unborn children in the 9th Amendment. After, all, Jefferson could just have easily written that all men are born equal. Instead, Jefferson evidently reflected the beliefs of the signers of the DoI that God-given rights start from the moment of conception.
And not only did the USSC fail to weigh the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children against the right to have an abortion, the Court also "overlooked" the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.
What a mess! :^(
Again, FDR's 10th A.-ignoring establishment of federal spending programs set off a chain-reaction of Court decisions by special-interest, life-hating, 10th A.-igoring justices which continue to weaken 10th A. protected state powers to this day.
Finally, has anybody stopped to consider that when the USSC finds that certain issues are constitutional or unconstitutional, when they are actually not mentioned in the Constitutional at all, abortion rights being a good example, that the USSC is actually wrongly legislating special interest agendas from the bench?
As I've said elsewhere, the people need to wise up to the very serious problem of wide-spread corruption in the federal government, particularly where the 10th A. protected powers of the states are being ignored. The people need to petition lawmakers, judges and justices who are not upholding their oaths to defend the Constitution, demanding that they resign from their jobs.
“Duncan Hunter has sponsored, introduced, and given speeches about this on the house floor for the past ten years-ever since Dornan lost his seat and asked his good friend, whom he knew to be prolife, to carry this particular torch.
In addition, Hunter has defended the disabled, opposed embryonic stem cell research, and every other kind of Frankenstein action against humanity.”
Duncan Hunter is absolutely pro-life from conception to natural death.
He has repeatedly tried to get his personhood-at-conception bill passed, and is the only (current) presidential candidate that said it was right for Congress to step in to help Terri Schiavo. All of the other candidates, either said it was wrong for Congress to step in, or they were not sure.
No state has the power to take innocent human life.
The Declaration of Independence exolains the purpose of the new govt, and recognizes certain inalienable rights-chief among them life.
That means these are rights that come from God, and no gov’t can take them away.
The 14th amendment incorporated the 5th amendment’s due process clause and added the equal protection clause.
That was 1868-long before FDR.
I agree with everything you said. However, you might have missed the point of my post. Again, the USSC’s scandalous legalization of abortion is arguably a consequence of FDR’s 10th A.-ignoring establishment of federal spending programs of the 1930s.
Nice job of quoting John Bingham out of context.
Here, for example, is the rest of the paragraph you culled your first quote from:
“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States. They elect their Legislatures; they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property; but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow-men. Why should it not be so? That is the question. Why should it not be so? Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States, a mere dead letter? It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced.”
In other words, Bingham intended the Fourteenth Amendment to empower the federal government to enforce state compliance with the full Bill of Rights. He said that his proposed amendment wouldn’t take away any states’ “rights” (probably he should really have said “powers”) because he didn’t think state governments had any legitimate authority to violate the Bill of Rights in the first place.
I don’t think that we’re on the same sheet of music. Given that I basically agree with what you said, do you mind restating your point in different words since you were evidently trying to refute a point that I made?
What does modern science conclude about when human life begins? (Excerpts)
By Dr. John Ankerberg and John Weldon
http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0805W3.htm The complete article is available in print friendly PDF format at: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0805.pdf
The scientific authorities on when life begins are biologists. But these are often the last people consulted in seeking an answer to the question. What modern science has concluded is crystal clear: Human life begins at conception. This is a matter of scientific fact, not philosophy, speculation, opinion, conjecture, or theory. Today, the evidence that human life begins at conception is a fact so well documented that no intellectually honest and informed scientist or physician can deny it.
In 1973, the Supreme Court concluded in its Roe v. Wade decision that it did not have to decide the “difficult question” of when life begins. Why? In essence, they said, “It is impossible to say when human life begins.” The Court misled the public then, and others continue to mislead the public today.
Anyone familiar with recent Supreme Court history knows that two years before Roe V. Wade, in October 1971, a group of 220 distinguished physicians, scientists, and professors submitted an amicus curiae brief (advice to a court on some legal matter) to the Supreme Court. They showed the Court how modern science had already established that human life is a continuum and that the unborn child from the moment of conception on is a person and must be considered a person, like its mother. The brief set as its task “to show how clearly and conclusively modern scienceembryology, fetology, genetics, perinatology, all of biologyestablishes the humanity of the unborn child.” For example,
In its seventh week, [the pre-born child] bears the familiar external features and all the internal organs of the adult.... The brain in configuration is already like the adult brain and sends out impulses that coordinate the function of other organs . The heart beats sturdily. The stomach produces digestive juices. The liver manufactures blood cells and the kidneys begin to function by extracting uric acid from the childs blood.... The muscles of the arms and body can already be set in motion. After the eighth week everything is already present that will be found in the full term baby.
This brief proved beyond any doubt scientifically that human life begins at conception and that “the unborn is a person within the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”
Thus, even though the Supreme Court had been properly informed as to the scientific evidence, they still chose to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show the pre-born child was fully human. In essence, their decision merely reflected social engineering and opinion, not scientific fact. Even during the growing abortion debate in 1970, the editors of the scientific journal California Medicine noted the “curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.”
In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee.
The U.S. Congress was told by Harvard University Medical Schools Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism reproducing by sexual reproduction begins at conception....”
Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr., of the University of Colorado Medical School, testified that “the beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matterthe beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political or economic goals.”
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception.”
He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty... is not a human being. This is human life at every stage albeit incomplete until late adolescence.”
Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception.”
World-famous geneticist Dr. Jerome Lejeune, professor of fundamental genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared, “each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception.”
Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.”
The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
He further emphasized: “now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins is an established scientific fact . It is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception.”
This Senate report concluded:
Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human beinga being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
In 1981, only a single scientist disagreed with the majoritys conclusion, and he did so on philosophical rather than scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to do so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception.
Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is solely a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious viewagnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc.all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death.”
This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for April 1949 (vol.1, p. 22) and January 1950 (vol. 2, p. 5). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva.
What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.
If we are going to cover this well, it needs to be defined well enough to shut out the abortefacients as well, or babies are still being killed. PP, pharmacists and doctors are not required to track this type of abortion so there is no real record of how many babies a year die from this method. Yet it is still abortion.
It does not follow logically, that if life begins at conception, one of your two identical twin granddaughters is not "alive." Even if the split between the two girls happened days after conception, we know that human life came into being at conception, meaning that human life was transmitted to a new generation.
Each individual girl shares in that new life--- the life that began at conception. Technically, you might want to consider the smaller girl as either a clone-offspring of the larger one, or posit that both individuals were present in the zygote in some undetectable way.
That is a technicality. The point is that Human life "began" perhaps a 1,750,000 years ago with Adam & Eve, or protohominid Lucy and her mate Mr. Australopithecus, or whatever --- and dthereafter, human life is "transmitted" every time another generation is conceived.
During the past 40 years or so, Planned Parenthood et al have redefined "conception" to mean "implantation." (Implantation is the moment, approximately 7-10 days after fertilization/conception, when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.) By using the new, revised definition of pregnancy = implantation, the morning-after pill, RU-486, embryonic stem cell research, and early abortions are permitted because "it" is not a pregnancy and she is not pregnant. Words mean things.
I repeat: if life does not begin at fertilization, then what is that "thing" and why is it growing? If it is not life, how can it be growing?
Words mean things. We may not agree with the definition of a word, but everyone must be talking from the same definition - or they're talking past each other. (Have you and your teen ever battled over curfew because each of you understood "be home by" differently?!)
Conception precedes fertilization. It is the instant the baby comes into being. Planned Parenthood can redefine all it wants. It will always do so every time they want the situation to suit their purposes. What I’m saying is that life begins BEFORE fertilization, or conception. Planned Parenthood and others of their ilk keep moving the goal posts. In fact, the pro-death crowd doesn’t care when life begins anyway, or they wouldn’t argue that partial birth abortion is OK to spare the health of the mother.
If we keep playing the word games to keep Planned Parenthood happy, then next we’ll be saying that life begins after the birth of the baby, or even several hours later, because that is where they are heading. There are some places that kill the babies now if they are found to have Downs Syndrome or some deformity.
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.