Posted on 01/15/2008 5:47:01 PM PST by rob777
Provides Basis for Protection of All Unborn by Legislatively Establishing Personhood.
A Life at Conception Act - as introduced by Congressman Duncan Hunter (H.R. 618) - is legislation that, quite simply, would declare the unborn to be “persons” under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore entitled to the right to life guaranteed therein. The 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.”
Uses Rather than Amends the Constitution Since Congress May Define Personhood.
Section 5, 14th Amendment - “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
In the past, corporations have been found to be “persons” under the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court has upheld this notion providing a clear precedent for legislatively defining who or what is in fact a “person” under the Amendment.
Certainly a human being yet to be born -- possessing its own unique set of human DNA -- is more worthy of the term “person” than a “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Roe v. Wade would be Effectively Reversed.
Abortion Never Declared Absolute Right - Abortion has never been declared by the Court to be an absolute constitutional right. In fact, when writing the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "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."
The Court then admitted: "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 by the [14th] Amendment."
A Life at Conception Act, by establishing personhood for the unborn, would do just that.
Technological Advances Settle Question of When Life Begins - Abortion was legalized more than thirty years ago. Since 1973 there have been major breakthroughs in medical technology.
We can now detect a fetal heartbeat only 5 weeks after conception and fetal brain waves can be measured at just 8 weeks. Ultrasound allows us to see a baby as he moves, sleeps and sucks his thumb in the womb.
Today human DNA is used as irrefutable proof of a criminal suspect’s guilt or innocence. The fact that each of us possesses a full and unique set of human DNA from the moment of conception is irrefutable proof that we are members of the human race or “persons.”
Most Americans Agree that Life Begins at Conception. Recent polls have demonstrated that a clear majority of Americans believe that life begins at the moment of conception. One such poll, conducted by Newsweek and published as a cover story, showed that 58% believe that at the moment an egg is fertilized a new human life begins.
A Constitutional Amendment is Not Necessary in Dealing with Roe v. Wade.
The Constitution guarantees the right to life (14th Amendment); it just needs to be enforced.
An amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress and must be ratified by 38 states.
Since a Life at Conception Act uses existing language in the 14th Amendment to protect the unborn, it requires only a simple majority vote in both Houses and the President’s signature for passage.
The Life at Conception Act Ends Experimentation on Humans Without Prohibiting Effective Stem Cell Research. This legislation protects human life from the moment of conception. Since adult stem cells are not and cannot become a human life, this bill will have no affect on adult stem cell research, which has been successfully used for many years in the treatment of a variety of diseases.
However, it would prohibit experiments on baby embryos where the human life is intentionally created and destroyed. Such experiments on human babies have been unproven and unpredictable. The Life at Conception Act would be Enforced Through Elected Legislatures, NOT the Hostile Federal Court System.
By legislatively defining life as beginning at the moment of conception, the Life at Conception Act provides all human life with the protection of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects “life, liberty and property.”
In that way, this legislation will remove all obstacles in which unelected judges, by judicial edict, prevent the people and their elected officials from enacting any protection of human life.
With judicial obstacles gone, Congress and state legislatures can then craft language with the specific protections and penalties.
A Life at Conception Act is Consistent with Supreme Court Precedent.
Since the Life at Conception Act must pass by majority vote in both Houses of Congress, and be signed into law by the President, the measure will go to the Court with considerable backing in the likely event it is challenged.
Furthermore, if the court attempted to backpedal on its language in Roe v. Wade permitting this legislation, Congress could use its power under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution to change the jurisdiction of federal courts and eliminate their jurisdiction over abortion.
This kind of legislation has been used by Congress before to reign in the Courts on other themes (see Norris LaGuardia Act). At that time, judges would know that being “fired” from jurisdiction over abortion would be a real threat to their power since it would require the same majority as the Life at Conception Act.
The threat of limiting jurisdiction is a check and balance written by our founding fathers that would be very persuasive in deterring judges from setting themselves up as absolute dictators.
A Life at Conception Act is the Best Vehicle for Making Progress in Defense of the Sanctity of Life.
The bill will be considered by the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the House and by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. To get action on the bill, it is essential to recruit a large number of cosponsors.
Through its nationwide Federal Pro-Life Candidate Survey Program and member communications, the National Pro-Life Alliance is stressing that cosponsoring the Life at Conception Act is the true measure of an elected official’s commitment to the pro-life cause.
Of course, the House and Senate have recently overwhelmingly passed measures like the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. So the political climate is favorable to the question of defining personhood, which is what the Life at Conception Act does.
Win or lose, a mere vote on this issue will give pro-life activists a reason to mobilize for those candidates who truly support the sanctity of life.
4521 Windsor Arms Court • Annandale, VA 22003 (703) 321-8380 • www.prolifealliance.com
There is nothing wrong ith our constitution and it does not need to be amended to protect the unborn.
The Constitution protects the Right to Life. This proposed amendment in not only riduculous but unnecessary.
Life is an unbroken chain and does not begin at conception.
The battle against abortion must be fought at the state level.
Awesome!
Duncan Hunter has been presenting this to Congress for ten years!
Yet, most prolifers I know think it is the same thing as a human life amendment.
C’mon, people, let’s work together for this!
It’s not a proposal to amend the constitution. Read it again.
No, innocent human life must be protected at every level of government.
The Declaration of Independence identifies the right to life as the first and primary right that government may not alienate.
The fifth amendment says human life may not be denied without due process of the law.
The 14th amendment does likewise, adding the equal protection clause which codifies the fact that all human lives are equal.
4,000 innocent babies die each day to abortion and you think the solution is to just putz around, trying to convince enough voters in each state to protect the lives of these babies?
That approach will ensure more deaths.
That approach is not ethical.
That approach is not constitutional.
That approach is morally vacant.
Go, Duncan Hunter!
Defending the lives of ALL Americans!
www.gohunter08.com
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 knowledg, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”
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 81 original cosponsors.
Life at Conception Act (H.R. 552) by Hunter, 2-2-06 w/ record 36 original cosponsors.
Right to Life Act by Hunter, 109th Cong. - w/ 102 cosponsors
Right to Life Act (H.R. 552) by Hunter, 2-2-05 w/ 101 cosponsors
Life at Conception Act by Hunter, 1-04 Life at Conception Act - (H.R. 579) by Hunter, 2-5-03 w/ 26 cosponsors
Right to Life Act of 2003 - (H.R.3069) by Hunter w/ 11 cosponsors
Life at Conception Act - January, 2002
Right to Life Act of 2001 - (H.R. 2763) by Hunter, w/ 14 cosponsors
2000 (still looking)
Right to Life Act, 2-9-99 by Hunter w/ 33 cosponsors
1998 (still looking)
Right to Life Act of 1997 - (H.R. 641 IH) by Hunter, 2-6-97 w/ 25 cosponsors
“This kind of legislation has been used by Congress before to reign in the Courts on other themes (see Norris LaGuardia Act).”
***Thanks for posting this. B4DH.
Hunter has been cosponsoring or sponsoring this type of unborn protection legislation since the mid 1980s.
Oh, I know. That would take years! Yet, it seems most people are completely unaware of this brilliant effort.
I believe Congressman Dornan was intorducing it until ten years ago.
Congressamn and presidential candidate Duncan Hunter has been offering it for ten years!
As a total process, yes---but the specific particular HUMAN begins at conception, and no other point. The real definition is "personhood", not "life".
I
110TH CONGRESS
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. FORTUN˜O,
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
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.
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
2
•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
3
•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.
LAST OPPORTUNITY TO BECOME AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF THE “RIGHT TO LIFE ACT”
Dear Colleague:
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 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 michael.harrison@mail.house.gov, by 12:00 noon on Monday, January 22nd.
Sincerely,
Duncan Hunter
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
You are so right!
I have actually had a poster inform me that the fifth amendment is not in the Bill of Rights!
Oh, I know he has always done everything he could to end this injustice.
Duncan Hunter is a worker, not a talker!
I was just stating that he has been THE PERSON in Congress to initiate this Act for at least ten years.
That is awesome!
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.