Showing posts with label Human Life Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Human Life Amendment. Show all posts

Saturday, July 1, 2023

National Celebrate Life Day - Not A Stellar Look

On Saturday June 24, 2023, I attended the National Celebrate Life Day on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in celebration of the first anniversary of the Dobbs decision that ended Roe v Wade.  Almost 60 years ago, Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have A Dream" speech from those same steps, although he was higher up on the steps than Saturday's speakers were.

I arrived late, but fortunately the video of the entire thing is online.  I was able to collect some photos of my own.  I will report off the official video and will post it below my remarks.  Speakers included Alveda King, Lila Rose, Kristan Hawkins.  Rose, in her remarks, opined that protection for the unborn child does not require another constitutional amendment for protection as that already exists under the 14th Amendment.  That would be true, IF all agreed upon the definition of personhood.  They don't.  That is why a constitutional amendment that spells out when personhood begins, namely, when sperm enters the ovum, is needed.

I arrived just as Mike Pence was introduced.  My immediate reaction was disappointment, and as his talk progressed, my misgivings were confirmed.  He remarked on the Dobbs ruling, giving credit and thanks to pro-lifers' prayer and work for that ruling. He also gave credit to pro-life leaders.  Most conspicuous, though, was any lack of mention of Donald Trump's pivotal role in that victory.  It was Trump who nominated three of the five justices that voted to overturn Roe.  He suggested that we work and pray to advance the cause of life.  That is precisely what he should have done, when he, as Vice President, had the opportunity and responsibility to thwart the obviously bogus presidential election of 2020.  His words ring hollow, especially when he said that we will work every day to elect leaders that will stand without apology for the unborn.  In fact, he undermined the presidency of the man who made the Dobbs decision possible.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, in her talk, made mention of a president who kept his promises.  It's a pity that she couldn't utter the word "Trump".  Linn Fitch, the Attorney General of Mississippi, started by saying that she and her team argued for returning the matter to the states.  Given the parameters put forth in the Dobbs legal action, that may have been all that they could argue.  That doesn't mean that generally we must settle for that.

Sometime later, Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, offered her remarks.  She stated that "we are going to end abortion because we are going to take away the need for it".  Stop right there!  One cannot talk about a "need" for an intrinsic evil.  That is an oxymoron.  There might be a warped desire for it, but never a need for it.  We simply must stop being sloppy with language and terminology.  Our use of language must be precise and disciplined at all times. 

When Chad Pechnold, a professor at Catholic University of America, took the stand, he stated that we could not return the abortion matter to the states, disagreeing with what the MS attorney general stated shortly before he took the stand.  He stated that the President must recognize the personhood of the child and afford that child the protections due under the 14th Amendment.  Again, this to me only solidifies the need to set in stone the definition of personhood.  He evinced what I believe to be an overly confident attitude towards the courts.  The courts can only act within their constitutional bounds, and that action is largely dependent on the judges that sit at those benches.  I will say this, though, for Dr. Pechnold; he seemed to be the only speaker who might have been older than 40 years of age.  I'll have more to say on that later in this post.

Nicole Hunt of Focus on the Family took the podium.  She repeated a common misunderstanding in stating that babies' status as human beings begins in the womb.  That's not quite so.  A human person comes into existence when sperm fertilizes ovum, but that usually occurs in the Fallopian tubes.  Then the new person, in his/her zygote stage, travels to the uterus to implant there.  The child's cell count is already increasing as the migration takes place.  A human life amendment to the Constitution would have to specify the exact stage of the beginning of personhood - the meeting of sperm and ovum.

All in all, this rally left me with quite a few misgivings.  With the exceptions of the professor from CUA and Micheal Henney, most of the speakers seemed to be on the younger side.  They projected exuberance, to be sure, but they didn't advise the attendees that the struggle is going to increase in intensity that can be disconcerting and even frightening.  Why was no mention made of the Red Rose Rescuers who, even today, are facing jail sentences?  Why no mention of Mark Houck and the persecution that he underwent last winter?  Why no mention of Dick Schaefer and Mark Crosby who were severely beaten up as they witnessed in front of the Baltimore Planned Parenthood two months ago?  Where were older, more "battle-hardened" leaders like Randall Terry, Monica Miller, Troy Newman, Brian Gibson?  I realize that they may have distracted from the appearance of a happy-clappy celebration, but is that appearance realistic?

How did all this de facto cheer-leading prepare the attendees for the hard-scrabble fight that is ahead of us?  As we tell the truth, we will make others uncomfortable - not just the hard-boiled pro-aborts, but also those who would rather keep their heads buried in the sand.

I think I know now why Donald Trump, who placed an essential role in the Dobbs case, was unmentioned.  For all his faults, he is not afraid of a fight.  He is ready to get in there and mix it up as the need arises.  His example is a stark reminder that we pro-life people have to be similarly prepared to do so.  Many are, but by and large, they were not represented on the podium of the Celebrate Life Rally.  If we are to bring about protection for the babies, we pro-lifers must harden our noses, put some calcium in our backbones and thicken our skins.  We must cease being afraid to get some dirt under our fingernails, get a little scrappy, to raise our voices and firmly rebuke the proponents of death.

One incident that happened just after the rally broke up brought these points to crystal clarity in my mind.  A young pro-abort strolled through the crowd with a pro-abort poster that said something to the effect of "protect women's rights, keep abortion legal".  I watched this for a few minutes.  No one stopped him to take issue with his statements or to refute his logic.  In fact, they were all smiley with him as they took pictures of him and his sign.  Finally I chimed in, saying "protect slave-owners' rights, keep slavery legal".  I was using his own logic, using slavery instead of abortion as the topic.  He then said, they weren't the same as he scurried away.  I followed him for a little bit and challenged him.  He just tried to get away.  

Finally other pro-lifers decided to pipe in - by rebuking me, not the pro-abort.  They claimed I was racist because I'm white and the guy was black.  So I fired back at them and they too scurried away.  If this is the kind of nicey-nice lack of mental acumen that our young pro-life activists are expected to demonstrate, babies are going to pay the price, as will western civilization and Christianity.

It is way past time to knock the stars out of our eyes, act like adults and get serious about ending abortion and bringing about a Godly culture in our country.


Saturday, October 9, 2010

Colorado's Amendment 62 - A Vital Step Towards A National Human Life Amendment

If this ballot initiative passes in Colorado, it will be a landmark step towards securing protection for the unborn children.  Watch as ALL's Michael Hichborn explains.  (Click here if you can't see embedded video).

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Maryland - A Veritable Abortion Bonanza

According to this Cecilwhig report, my home state of Maryland probably one of the most deadly places in which an unborn child can find him/herself.  I've known for some time that the annual abortion number is 38,000 baby murders per year. 

Some other key facts about abortion in Maryland are:
  • Minors seeking abortions in Maryland need notify only one parent.  Note that they must only "notify" the parent, not seek his/her consent.  However, even that can be waived if the doctor believes the minor is capable of giving informed consent.  Of course the doctor has a financial interest in performing the abortion.  How convenient for the abortionist!
  • Maryland is one of three states that don't require abortionists to report their procedures.
  • According to Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, "The state respects a woman's right to make her own decisions about an unwanted pregnancy while providing good access to safe practices."  Consider the source and understand what that truly says about Maryland.
Those of us who've been in the pro-life battle for a while remember the struggle in 1992 against Maryland SB 162, which struck down any vestige of protection for the unborn child in Maryland.  Should Roe v Wade ever be overturned, all that would do would be to remand the abortion battles back to the states.  Some misguded libertarians believe that the state is the proper place for such matters.  In so promulgating this nonsense, they elevate their rarified concept of the US Constitution above its intent, "to preserve the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."  I think our Founding Fathers would be horrified to see some citizens opining that if some wanted liberalized abortion laws in their states (that is, license to murder) then that would be constitutionally permissible.  We need a Human Life Amendment (discussed in a previous post) to ensure that all babies are protected in the entire United States, regardless of the caprices of the already-born citizens of some states.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Commentary On My Communications With The MD Constitution Party

I would like to preface my comments with a quote from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

One of the questions I had asked was whether or not Knowles would support a human life amendment. To be fair, I could have quoted some of the language that pro-life circles have been advocating for years.  Actually a number of bills have been floated over the years; all of them can be found at the website of the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment.  One such amendment, authored by the late Senator Jesse Helms in 1981, reads:
  Section 1 The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of the human person.
  Section 2 With respect to the right to life guaranteed to persons by the fifth and fourteenth articles of amendment to the Constitution, the word "person" applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, health, function, or condition of dependency, including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development including fertilization.