-- Tom Hoefling, President and Founder, Equal Protection for Posterity
"To claim a right to 'decide' whether or not some individual, or class of individuals, should be protected, is to deny the unalienable, God-given nature of our rights, the basis for the American claim to liberty, the cornerstone for the rule of law, the very raison d'etre of human government, according to our founders: '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 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...'"
-- Tom Hoefling, President and Founder, Equal Protection for Posterity
If you care about restoring respect for LIFE in America, be a Friend of Life and Liberty today, please!
Equal Protection for Posterity is funded solely by the Friends of Life and Liberty.
Can you be a Friend today?
We need you to keep this vital work alive.
Any amount will be VERY helpful.
Click Here, and be generous!
National Right to Life's immoral, unconstitutional "fetal pain" strategy meets its inevitable practical dead end
Just like we've been saying right along:
NRTL's main focus, which is "twenty week" "and then you can kill the baby" bills, are immoral, unconstitutional, and ultimately USELESS at stopping abortion on demand.
Wake up, people!
The "strategy" of the "pro-life" industry is now thoroughly discredited.
Supreme Court declines to hear Arizona abortion appeal
Dr. Patrick Johnston
I was asked to lend my support for the Texas "20-week" bill in its infancy, but once I read it I could not. Many pro-life leaders support such bills, yet haven't even read the bill. Some of these bills re-affirm Roe v. Wade, dehumanize the preborn, and justify the killing of some children. Those supporting such bills believe that the abortion any preborn child is murder, and yet their bills permit some murder. Hypocrisy is not a fruit of the Spirit. It's like an opponent to slavery in the colonial era actually owning a slave. It's like condemning the lynching of slaves UNLESS the lyncher is informed that the slave can feel pain (similar to the fetal pain awareness bills). Or UNLESS the lyncher has viewed a mandatory ultrasound of the slave's heartbeat first. Or UNLESS the slave being lynched is under a certain age.
The Texas "20-week" bill actually nullifies itself if it poses an "undue burden" on a women intent on killing her baby. The Ohio Heartbeat Bill actually nullifies itself if a judge overturns it!
Since when do godless judges and "undue burdens" on murderers trump the commandment "Do no murder"?
"Some lives will be saved," the argument is made. That remains to be seen. A federal judge recently overturned North Dakota's heartbeat bill, calling it "unconstitutional". Many oppose personhood bills because they worry that the courts will overturn them, but many of these regulatory bills get overturned, too. If we'd start trying to protect all the threatened children, instead of trying to legalize circumstances in which they may be killed, or designating an age at which they may be killed, then maybe we've have a law worth defying the feds over, a law God would bless.
Think about this: Should we "do evil that good may come"? Would you blaspheme God's name to stop an assault? Would you commit sodomy to stop a terrorist attack? Would you dismember and kill one Downs Syndrome baby in order to save others from dying?
You shouldn't, not if God's law is the standard of right and wrong. Relative morality is affront to God's sovereignty and Jesus' lordship. Situational ethics is a satanic alternative to God's rule. God is the standard of morality and justice, and "He that keeps the whole law and offends in one point is guilty of all" (James 2:10). His law says "Thou shalt not kill", not "Kill this baby, but not this baby." Thou shalt not kill!
We shouldn't be hypocrites, condemning the murder of dehumanized babies out of one side of our mouths, and justifying the murder of some dehumanized babies out of the other side of our mouths through supporting compromised bills. Read the bill before you fall prey to the advertising campaigns, and be sure that is compatible with God's Word.
The American Right to Life articles "Oppose Abortion Regulations Because..." and "Oppose Abortion Exceptions Because..." show why Christians cannot support most so-called pro-life bills that
- attempt to regulate abortion (for example, bills attempting to make child-killing clinics more sanitary, safer for the killers); or
- designate an age at which some children may be killed (like most heartbeat bills and late-term abortion bans), or
- designate circumstances, such as rape, incest, or fetal handicap, when some children may be killed.
Study these articles, and learn the biblical arguments well, for just as in the days of American slavery, when many Christians rested content with "incremental" bills regulating yet legitimizing the slave trade, so today many of God's people are comfortable with some child-killing, bringing the guilt of innocent blood on themselves.
We don't have to wander the wilderness of "abortion regulation", staining our hands with the blood of the innocent children our legislation permits to be murdered. No! We can enter the Promised Land of "liberty and justice for all." "It is not the will of your Father in heaven that one of these children should perish", and "if we ask anything in His name, believing we have received it, we will have it." Will you pray and believe with us? Will you help us?
Join our cause. Don't try to regulate the killing. Be an abortion abolitionist.
United States Senator Ted Cruz of Texas,
Your demeanor and plain words on many subjects have been refreshing, Senator, since your election. But your support for the so-called 'twenty week' or "fetal pain" abortion legislation that was just passed in your home state, and which is similarly being proposed in the great national legislative body in which you now serve, is a huge disappointment. Such support destroys your credibility and disqualifies you.
Do you think it would be right, or just, or moral, or constitutional, if a "law" were passed that explicitly allowed all paraplegics to be shot to death, since they cannot "feel pain"?
Would a "law" that gave "legal" permission to kill elderly family members, as long as they were given enough morphine, be acceptable to you?
Because that is exactly what these sorts of bills are predicated upon. An arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, irrational, baseless, immoral claim concerning whether or not the victim can feel anything when they are destroyed at the vicious, bloody hands of the abortionists.
The Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
The Fourteenth Amendment:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Personhood - what you intrinsically are, a unique person, made in God's image and likeness - is the constitutional criteria, not "pain," not calendar age, not stage of maturity or human development, not location, nor anything else.
America's founders clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, our nation's charter, that the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life of EVERY PERSON, FROM THEIR CREATION, is the raison d'etre, the primary reason, for the existence of government.
"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 life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
And, the ultimate stated purpose of our Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."
"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."
Any bill that grants express permission, as this legislation does, to kill certain disfavored classes of innocent persons, violates EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE of that statement of purpose, in fact.
The equal protection of every innocent person within the United States, from the first moment of their physical creation, is NOT optional. IT IS IMPERATIVE, if you are to fulfill the obligations of the sacred oath that you swore to God Himself.
If you will not act according to that supremely important imperative, frankly, you're not fit for any office of public trust. I must say, without any reservation, that you, and every one of your colleagues who agrees with you, should, if you will not immediately change your thinking, resign in shame and disgrace and go home. Let someone who understands the basics of the obligations of the oath serve in your stead.
If you, and ALL officers of government, in EVERY branch, at EVERY level, , as per the absolute requirement of Article Six of our Constitution, will not keep your oath to defend the unalienable, God-given right to life of EVERY innocent person, FROM CREATION UNTIL NATURAL DEATH, there will soon be no America. You will have destroyed it, because a building cannot long stand without its foundations. And make no mistake, respect for the individual EQUAL right to live is that foundation.
The practices of abortion and euthanasia should not exist in a republic whose form of government, and law, and claim to liberty, is predicated on the foundation of the equal protection of unalienable, God-given natural individual rights, starting with the right to live.
"Don't worrry they won't feel a thing" is an immoral thing to say, Senator. It's wrong.
Your position is actually a giant evil step beyond Roe vs. Wade, which was a mere court opinion. After all, even Blackmun admitted in that infamous majority opinion that if the "fetus," or child, is a person, "of course" they are protected by our Constitution's explicit equal protection requirement. You, on the other hand, admit to their personhood, and, contrary to the Constitution, grant express permission for certain disfavored classes of those persons to be murdered. You are embedding, codifying, "legal" permission to kill innocent people in our laws. This is, sir, a lawless, senseless, thing to do.
One last thing:
Since "laws" such as this are not according to right reason, being clearly immoral and a gross violation of the first and most important aspect of the natural law, they are null and void in any case. The wisest men throughout the history of western civilization, right up through the generation of the founders of this great republic we call America, rightly said so.
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, although neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal a part of it, and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by Senate or People, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for He is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly called punishment ..."
-- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 59 - 47 B.C.
"Human law is law only by virtue of its accordance with right reason; and thus it is manifest that it flows from the eternal law. And in so far as it deviates from right reason it is called an unjust law; in such case it is no law at all, but rather a species of violence."
-- Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia-Ilae, q. xciii, art. 3, ad 2m.
"Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever."
"This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
-- William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)
"[A]ll men are equally bound by the laws of nature, or to speak more properly, the laws of the Creator."
-- Samuel Adams
"When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void."
-- Alexander Hamilton
Please reconsider your immoral, unconstitutional position forthwith, Senator.
Chairman, America's Party
The "pro-life" "Republicans" in the U.S. House, at the behest of the National Right to Life Committee, are slated to take up a bill today that would codify permission for certain professional killers to murder paraplegics, or to kill any person for that matter, if they are first given enough morphine to make sure that they don't feel any pain.
Okay, not really.
But they are offering legislation that is just as capricious, illogical, unreasonable, unconstitutional, and immoral. They are forwarding the "Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" (H.R. 1797). This legislation recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb, and then specifically allows abortionists to kill them, if the child has not yet reached a certain stage of human development.
But the constitutional criteria is not whether or not someone can feel pain. It is whether or not they are a PERSON.
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." - the Fifth Amendment
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." - the Fourteenth Amendment
I will never support any politician who supports the codification of this sort of lawless law. I have so pledged, as has everyone I most closely associate myself with politically.
Every argument in favor of this bill is Utilitarian, not moral or constitutional, by the way. And I am not a godless Utilitarian. I am a Christian.
And Utilitarian fixes don't work anyhow. Not only are they wrong, in the long haul they always prove to be an abject defeat, not a victory. Because to buy into them, you have to first surrender all of the moral, constitutional, and legal principles that argue against the heinous practice of killing babies.