Update (December 16, 2010): Rebuttals have now been posted below each opening statement
Second rebuttals have been posted as of December 10, 2010. Concluding arguments have been posted as of December 16. There will be no further formal postings from Mr. Ashley or Mr. Ertelt, who are now free to engage in discussion with you, the readers, in the comments section at the bottom of this article.
For many years Operation Rescue has worked to restore legal protections to the pre-born. In early 2006, when South Dakota was attempting to pass the first state-wide ban on abortion, Operation Rescue was there supporting those efforts. Later, when that law was challenged through the referendum process, Operation Rescue was there.
We sent one of our missionaries at that time, Keith Mason, who now heads Personhood U.S.A., to South Dakota, Mississippi, and elsewhere to learn all he could about the abortion bans that were sweeping the nation in 2006, so we could know best how to support those efforts.
In our office, we often discussed the topic of personhood and how the “Blackman Hole” was the loophole in Roe v. Wade that could eventually lead our country back to restoring legal protections for all, no matter the age or stage of development. (Read one of our articles from 2006 discussing this topic.) One could say that the Personhood Movement was birthed in our office.
Keith Mason learned well from us, and after leaving Operation Rescue, he founded Personhood U.S.A. and began promoting Personhood amendments throughout the country, especially in Colorado.
Recently, a lively discussion on Facebook concerning Colorado’s twice defeated Amendment 62 prompted Newman to extend an invitation to the Personhood camp and to those who question the wisdom of tactics used by Personhood U.S.A. in Colorado to a friendly debate. We asked both sides to submit 400 word statements in support of their views. We asked only that both sides refrain from ad hominem attacks. Other than removing any name-calling, we promised not to alter their statements in any way. (In fact, we have printed the statements submitted without edits of any kind.) Unfortunately, that one condition caused several from Personhood U.S.A. to pull out of the debate.
However, Keith Ashley, of Personhood Kansas graciously agreed to step in and submit a statement on behalf of the Personhood organization. Steven Ertelt, Editor of LifeNews.com, has agreed to submit a statement in opposition.
We literally flipped a coin to see whose statement would post first. Mr. Ashley won the coin toss and will appear first, with Mr. Ertelt’s statement directly below.
We encourage you to read the two statements and engage in the debate through the comment feature at the end of the articles. Which side do you favor? We ask, as we have with our debaters, that those who comment abstain from ad hominem attacks and profanity. All comments are moderated, and while we encourage debate, we will not allow personal attacks on individuals or groups.
“It is our prayer that this debate will air ideas that will ultimately be beneficial for the Pro-life Movement as a whole and help guide us toward the most efficient and practical way to stop abortion in America as soon as humanly possible,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “That is a goal to which we can all agree.”
PRO
For 38 years, incrementalists have advocated for legislation that purports to “chip away” at Roe. They’ve passed parental notification laws–the abortionists point to the nearest court handing out judicial bypasses. They push for late-term abortion bans with health exceptions–the courts sweep in and define the terms to include mental health disorders such as depression and stress, common side effects of pregnancy. They tout achievements such as the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban–the abortionists go about their daily business using alternate methods to burn and dismember defenseless children. The good people of Colorado and many of us around the country are of the opinion that the time has come to change course.
A Gallup poll taken last May found that people who identify as “pro-life” once again outnumber those who identify as “pro-choice.” 19% of the country believes that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances,” and the highest percentage, 37%, responded that abortion should be “legal in only a few circumstances.” It’s assumed that these “few circumstances” are those children conceived by rape and those whose lives are in conflict with their mothers. I submit to you that the reason for this disconnect is a confusion of the cause and effect.
Incrementalists believe that the cause is the opinions held by the people—with the effect being that the only option left to them is to pass laws with wide public support. The reality is that the opinions are the result of decades of pandering. Because the issue has been so completely politicized, people who identify as “pro-life” look to their political leaders for guidance. These leaders include pro-life advocacy organizations, and because they have been eager to compromise, so too have the people.
A poll taken before the election in 2008 found that just 9% of Coloradoans supported a total ban on abortion—far below national averages. However, when it came time to pull the lever this year, 30% voted to declare that every human being is a person no matter their age. Personhood moves the base. Personhood is a game changer. Personhood distances the movement from one concerned with banning an institutionalized medical procedure and repositions it as an education and recognition of the positive human rights of the youngest people. Coloradoans and Americans everywhere are in desperate need of shepherding towards the principled and morally consistent position. In this, A62 has been a success.
Keith Ashley is a husband and father of three. He is the former Director of Rock for Life Kansas and a current committee member with Personhood Kansas, a grassroots organization campaigning to amend the Kansas Constitution to recognize the right to life of every human person from our biological beginnings. Keith also works full-time in Christian ministry at a home for teenage boys and volunteers with Justice for All, a pro-life campus outreach group based out of Wichita.
__________
Rebuttal to “PRO” Statement
By Steven Ertelt, Founder and Editor, Lifenews.com
Keith’s initial post in this exchange is, sadly, not a defense of running the amendment in Colorado but a criticism of other pro-life efforts.
He criticizes “incrementalists” who want to pass laws to stop some abortions while we work to eliminate all of them and defines most pro-lifers as something other than who we are and what we want. We absolutely want abortion ended immediately, but we recognize the only way to legally protect unborn children is through the political process — a long-term proposition akin to ending slavery.
The question is not whether, as Keith unfortunately describes it, anyone is “eager to compromise” but what will we do until we can protect every unborn child.
Until then, should we at least ban one form of abortion (which doesn’t have a health exception as Keith claimed)? Should we ensure taxpayers aren’t forced to fund abortions?
Should we at least ensure parents know when their little girl wants an abortion or leave them in the dark? Should we ensure women know the development of their baby and receive information on abortion alternatives?
The answer for all but the most extreme pro-abortion Americans is absolutely yes. And because half to two-thirds of Americans agree with those proposals, we’ve shifted public opinion to the pro-life side, as reflected in the Gallup poll Ashley cited.
Also, the evidence shows “incrementalism” is working as we’re perhaps two judges closer to overturning Roe and abortions have dropped to historic lows in many states.
Passing laws to stop as many abortions as possible, until we can ban abortion outright, has stopped a massive number of abortions. States like Mississippi, Michigan, South Carolina and Missouri have seen abortions cut in half thanks to these laws. Those clearly are “achievements” worth celebrating and “changing course” makes little sense.
Finally, as to the lone defense of the amendment, Ashley claims it moves the base — but the opposite appears to be true.
In a Democratic election year the amendment received just 27 percent while, in this Republican year, it received just 29 percent. The 2010 elections saw a 7 percent Republican shift from 2008, but the amendment only gained two percent. If Keith is right, and the amendment can successfully shift public opinion, it should have gained more than 7 percent. Instead, the amendment ran behind public opinion and will undoubtedly be defeated again in 2012.
__________
Reply by Mr. Ashley, Personhood Kansas
Surely Mr. Ertelt could agree that it is valid, in an opinionated debate concerning pro-life strategy, to open with the major criticisms of the alternative in demonstrating the necessity of challenging the status quo.
Some of the questions he poses present an opportunity for agreement. Some do not. In any case, the
answer to all of them is “personhood.” The more pressing area of disagreement is in his premise–that
these personhood measures are destined for failure.
Personhood advocates believe that we are called to be faithful, and in so doing, we have discovered a
legal basis that we intend to exploit, primarily, “the authority of the State to exercise its police power
or its sovereign right to adopt in its own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those
conferred by the Federal Constitution” (Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 1980). For interested
parties, an in depth analysis can be found in “Personhood: A Path to Victory” by Gualberto Garcia Jones,
J.D. under the “Articles” tab at PersonhoodKansas.com.
Mr. Ertelt’s rebuttal goes on to claim that “we’ve shifted public opinion to the pro-life side.” In
reality, medical and technological advances, educational projects, graphic displays, youth outreach
organizations, sidewalk counselors, and CPC’s can claim responsibility for changing hearts and
minds. These most noble endeavors are separate from the incremental legal strategy. Instead,
advocates of the incremental legal strategy can make claim in helping to moderate personal and political
positions.
When taking issue with the concept that personhood moves the base, Mr. Ertelt is comparing apples
to oranges, and a bit of clarification is in order. The 7% shift he references is a political swing for the
Republican Party in an election dominated by fiscal issues. The personhood phenomenon is a pro-life
movement towards the position that recognizes every abortion as intrinsically evil. From the statistics
I cited in opening, it is obvious that Amendments 48 and 62 can account for this 21 point shift in
Colorado. Despite his efforts to convince us of the contrary, these numbers are very encouraging.
__________
Concluding Argument by Steve Ertelt
The debate in this forum, graciously sponsored by Operation Rescue, is over and the debate about whether another personhood amendment should be proposed in Colorado in 2012 should be over as well.
Typically, when pro-life groups or leaders offer factual criticism of the amendment and the failed legal and political strategy behind it, supporters resort to personal attacks or criticize groups or people who have been working to stop abortions.
That was the case with this forum as Personhood USA would not participate because its officials refused to commit to a good faith debate without attacking me.
Even without personal attacks, Keith’s initial post speaks volumes as his first words were not in defense of the amendment but were an attack on the work the pro-life movement has done that has reduced abortions to historic lows and has shut down hundreds of abortion businesses.
It’s time for amendment supporters to acknowledge these facts:
1. The amendment in Colorado hasn’t even received 30 percent of the vote, let alone a majority, in two tries even under the best case political scenario.
2. The amendment has had no proven political or educational value in terms of shifting public opinion or assisting pro-life candidates and appears to have had the opposite effect.
3. The amendment (in any state) will be immediately overturned in court if it is somehow miraculously approved and amendment supporters have done nothing to change the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and allow the amendment to stand.
4. The amendment, as pro-life attorneys point out (see comments below), may not result in protecting unborn children even if it is approved by voters and upheld in court.
These factual points were not rebutted in this debate. As a result, it is time for amendment supporters to end what is and will continue to be a failed attempt to end abortions via an amendment that, currently, has no chance of saving one unborn child and has hurt pro-life candidates supporting efforts that will end abortion.
The pro-life movement needs real unity behind the only next step that will save lives — defeating President Barack Obama, installing a pro-life president and Senate ,and adding that one additional justice who may prove to be the deciding vote to end Roe and pave the way for the kind of amendments and abortion bans we all want to see.
Will amendment supporters join us or continue these attacks?
__________
__________
CON
On election day, Colorado voters defeated the personhood amendment for a second time on a lopsided margin. If we truly care about ending abortion, we need to learn some important lessons from this defeat and refocus our efforts.
The 2010 election was a landslide for the pro-life movement, but the Colorado personhood amendment lost by a 71-29 percent margin — just a two percent improvement from the 27 percent who supported it in 2008. The political environment for passing the amendment will likely never be better, yet it came nowhere close to passing.
The second defeat of the personhood amendment came at a price for the pro-life movement.
The time, money and effort spent on an the amendment could have been put towards pro-life candidates Tom Tancredo and Ken Buck, who lost by narrow margins. Instead, we have a governor and senator who will continue to force us to fund the Planned Parenthood and abortion with taxpayer dollars.
The pro-life movement needs to learn from these defeats and understand the solution to end abortion — changing the courts. We have to defeat Barack Obama in 2012 and elect a pro-life Senate to have any chance of overturning Roe v. Wade and banning abortions.
If Colorado backs Obama in 2012 and he becomes president for another four years, he could appoint the Supreme Court judges who will keep unlimited abortions in place for decades. Colorado was the first state to legalize abortions pre-Roe and we could become the state to keep it legal another 37 years unless we focus all our efforts on defeating Obama.
Therefore, we can’t afford to spend considerable time and money on an amendment that is losing at the polls and won’t be upheld in the current pro-abortion Supreme Court. A third campaign for a personhood amendment in 2012 will dilute the resources of the pro-life movement that need to be focused on defeating Obama. And with Obama on the ballot to turn out pro-abortion voters, the amendment won’t win a majority anyway.
We need a united pro-life movement in Colorado and nationwide focusing all of its energy and attention on the 2012 elections — only then can we truly protect unborn children.
As the founder and Editor of LifeNews.com, Steven Ertelt has provided the pro-life community with news via the Internet since 1993. He also serves on the board of directors of Colorado Citizens for Life, the statewide pro-life group. He is the past president of Right to Life of Wyoming and previously served as the executive director of Montana Right to Life and the public affairs director for Indiana Right to Life. Mr. Ertelt is also a former president of Students for Life of America and started the college outreach program at the National Right to Life Committee. A former radio announcer who has been interviewed on dozens of radio and television programs, Mr. Ertelt holds a bachelor’s degree in Politics from Hendrix College.
__________
Rebuttal to “CON” Statement
By Keith Ashley, Personhood Kansas
One of the lessons learned from A62 is that it requires so very little in resources to mobilize, activate, and educate thousands of people. One could say that these referenda also have the effect of increasing turnout for pro-life candidates down-ballot. And while the pro-life movement is vibrant and young, the old pro-choice guard is dwindling and stale. With this in mind, one could argue that the opposite is true–that one of the best ways to help pro-life candidates in these swing states is by initiating a personhood ballot measure.
With more support from the greater pro-life community to promote measures across the country and pro-life media outlets to help battle the abortion industry propaganda machine, it’s possible to envision what could potentially be the largest pro-life turnout ever.
It has also become a necessary exercise in this debate to examine the possibilities if personhood advocates were to shut down and focus wholly on defeating Obama.
1. We are successful in electing a pro-life candidate. Are we then guaranteed victory?
We would all certainly hope so. However, it must be noted that just a few short years ago, we had elected the most pro-life President and Congress in history. For two decades, seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court were Republican appointees. And yet, abortion on demand perseveres. It’s safe to say that fully investing ourselves in elections and judicial appointments has, thus far, proven a disappointment.
2. Despite our best efforts, Obama wins reelection. Will we have then let our best opportunity for “decades” pass by?
In reference to Justice Kennedy’s federalist principles and ever increasingly conservative rulings, Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center writes, “In many respects, the best case to present to the Court is one in which a state is seeking to protect human life as a matter of state constitutional law. For a state to amend its constitution to protect life speaks volumes to the Court. And it is perhaps the best case scenario to tip the balance of the scale with Justice Kennedy.”
There may be some room for agreement here in that it will not be Colorado that is first to stop the killing. Instead, we look to Mississippi, who in less than a year from now will take bold and declarative action. And it will be due, in part, to the road map laid out in Colorado.
__________
Reply from Mr. Ertelt, LifeNews.com
In his rebuttal to my opening statement, Keith makes some claims about the personhood amendment that don’t square with the facts.
He claims the amendment increased turnout for pro-life candidates, yet, as I’ve demonstrated, it ran behind the election momentum and pro-life candidates lost despite running it twice. Claiming an amendment that never managed 30 percent in the polls somehow is responsible for pro-life candidates winning doesn’t pass the straight face test.
Plus, the major pro-life candidates in both election cycles didn’t win. In 2010, statewide pro-life candidates Ken Buck and Tom Tancredo lost. In 2008, Bob Schaffer lost his race. Not only did the amendment not help them, amendment supporters attacked Buck and Schaffer and caused pro-life voters to be confused about their sterling pro-life credentials.
Keith questions what would happen if amendment efforts shut down to focus on what is the only option to end abortion — changing the presidency, the Senate, and, ultimately, the courts. Yet he forgets the central problem with the amendment — it will never be upheld in court, even if passed. Changing the courts is the only route to ending abortion.
He calls efforts to effect change disappointing, but we are potentially just one vote away from perhaps overturning Roe v. Wade. Defeating Obama in 2012 gives us the real chance of getting that fifth vote and possibly protecting unborn children.
If amendment efforts shut down to focus on this goal, the chances increase of electing a president who will appoint justices more likely to reverse Roe and uphold a personhood amendment or abortion ban. Changing the courts is a slow and painstaking process, but we have no other choice if we want abortions banned.
Keith worries about wasted efforts if Obama wins the election. If Obama wins, as I explained in my earlier post, the likelihood of ever reversing Roe and protecting unborn children is almost assuredly put off for decades more because he will be able to further shape the Supreme Court. Why would anyone spend even one second of time on an amendment that is doomed to fail and allow that possibility to occur?
Amendment backers should put aside the amendment in 2012 and put every bit of their time and effort into ensuring that Obama doesn’t keep abortion legal for another 37 years. This election is so crucial to protecting the unborn and every pro-life person must get involved.
__________
Concluding Argument by Keith Ashley
In closing, it may be useful to note that the pro-life movement is in unanimous agreement that every human being is inherently possessed with the natural, God-given, and unalienable right to life. And it is, not just “banning abortion,” but the recognition of these personhood rights of all people, born and preborn, that is our shared end goal.
The time has come to refocus, and one fact remains–little baby boys and girls, human persons, are being killed by the thousands every day in this country. It is truly unbelievable. We can fight this battle on multiple fronts, and we must have a pro-life movement that considers it their moral obligation to recognize the rights of the preborn now.
For the sake of preborn children everywhere awaiting their fate, let us envision how victory in both camps might serve as a benefit to them. In the most likely event that a personhood measure is ratified at a time not too far distant, it could certainly find its way to the desk of a Supreme Court justice, newly appointed by a pro-life President.
At the same time, “since no one knows the future,” stand with us in truth and have faith in the power of our God to work in the hearts of men. Let us be mindful that the risk we run in delay are the lives of the millions of children scheduled to die in the time between this very moment, the complete nullification of that dreadful decision, and the rectification of law.
If it is defeat that concerns you, take heart! Please be assured that Roe will always be the subject of review by a constitutionally sound court because the “right to abortion” is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. It is a myth—a crime against humanity—and we will not break.
Let us also remember that even in defeat, we are victorious. This great nation of ours has lost her way. Whether or not you agree with the potential of a personhood measure to produce the desired result, one must never deny that this educational function—in the very truth of the matter–is one of its greatest assets.
Finally, closing the chapter on Roe may or may not be sufficient in accomplishing this stated end goal. However, the vindication of these rights will certainly spark the great wave across this nation soon to follow. Why would any advocate of life oppose the beginning of the process that many foresee as an eventual necessity–amending our secular laws to definitively recognize the rights of the preborn? If this is indeed the reality we face, Colorado is certainly not exempt.
“The time is always right to do what’s right.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
The “Blackmun Hole” is not a sound basis for the personhood effort. If indeed the Roe court had found that unborn children were “persons” under the constitution, it would have led the Supreme Court to find adequate basis for upholding the Texas law, and, by implication, similar laws in a majority of the other states. That would have been a victory. However, such a finding would NOT have mandated that unborn children be treated as “persons” everywhere, and states like California and New York would have been able to retain their pro-abortion policies. Of course those laws could have been challenged but there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court would have countermanded what the legislators in those states thought about “personhood,” based on a different Texas case decision. Even now, it is difficult to see how anyone could believe that even the current anti-Roe justices would overrule the “personhood” holding of Roe (finding that they are not persons)given that these justices, as “strict constructionists,” have never indicated that they believe unborn children are “persons” in the constitutional sense and in fact one, Justice Scalia, has specifically said he does not believe this.
Steve’s argument appears to boil down to a strategy of electing pro-life Republicans. It should be obvious to someone like Steve, that electing pro-life Republican’s has failed for over 30 years. Pro-life Republican President George W. Bush, promised the American people that he would not use the life issue as a litmus test for appointing judges. And he kept his promise.
After Ken Buck won the primaries with support of pro-lifers, he backed out on his support for the Personhood Amendment and even promised that we would be willing to confirm pro-abortion judges.
http://www.denverpost.com/election2010/ci_16114433
Steve Ertelt wants us to move resources from promoting principled personhood laws protecting unborn children, into promoting Republicans who make promises to appoint and confirm the same pro-abortion judges who gave use Roe v. Wade.
I don’t think so.
Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Nathan, that definition of insanity could be applied to the CO Personhood efforts just as well. Why keep putting up a failed amendment year after year without altering tactics yet expecting different results? It’s craziness. I think this debate shows that we have to start doing something different if we are ever to end abortion. It is irrational to reject the political process when political change is needed to insure legal protections for the pre-born. I’m not saying I have all the answers, but don’t start slinging the “insanity” argument, when your side is just as guilty.
The question as I see it is “who needs to change in order to protect the unborn?” If we change political leaders, will this result in giving the unborn their constitutional right to life?” Perhaps. If this is not reflected in the hearts of the people, will it have any real chance? I think not. William Penn, in “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania” stated “Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad”. I have enjoyed working in the 40 Days for Life campaign because the focus is changing hearts. When one person recognizes the absolute depravity of killing the unborn, will they continue to support it? A pro-life political leader may find himself in office as a result of other issues and make advances for the unborn, do these advances have any foundation? I believe they could be temporal. Satan always has a work around too.
God is central to all this. Some can agree that murder, theft, rape, etc. are wrong and also deny God, but in reality those morals descend from God and without Him, morality is completely subjective. Truth must be the foundation for any cure to evil. If man rejects truth, how could we expect them to accept it by rule of law? Abortion is the most profane of evils, but not the only strategy that Satan levies against us. If we do not recognize the spiritual battle that we are engaged in and fight on that front, we are blind guides. Will changed leaders or laws bring repentance to the United States? No, I say that true change starts in the heart.
I see the personhood movement as a means to change hearts and that is central in my mind. How many hearts in Colorado would be changed by a different president?
Tactically, incremental approaches do have value, so I don’t necessarily see it as an all or nothing proposition. When we are silent though, we are advocates. I am ashamed of those who call themselves Christians and yet run and hide when the word abortion is mentioned, or worse, those who tacitly support it by compromise, apathy or indifference.
What strategies can achieve both?
Please Lord Jesus, grant us mercy by pouring out your Holy Spirit on our nation and most importantly on those who call themselves by your name so we can effect change in our own lives and stand against the evil one.
Some of the earliest pro-life bumper stickers read, “A person is a person, no matter how small.” Dr. Suess. And “God is prolife.” It’s really quite simple. This pro-lifer’s resources are only available when we unashamedly speak the truth, even if we don’t see any victory in it.
Principle over expediency. Always do what is right and don’t sweat the consequences, so said Davy Crockett. Changing minds is what this is all about. Trying to elect the right candidates will almost always lead to disappointment. If you lose the election, what have you gained. If you lose the amendment debate, but have changed thousands of minds toward the pro-life position, you are not only closer to the ultimate solution, BUT you may have saved hundreds of babies from abortion.
Election of candidates almost always lead to partisan debates. We need to change minds. No one advocates enslaving blacks today because minds have been changed. Today, we have 3 dimensional ultrasounds. Put that hard core evidence on TV when political ads must be run regardless of content, and see how many minds are changed.
Finally, Bastiat told us that if the Law is kept within its proper bounds, it makes no difference who is elected to office. This should be our goal: To educate Americans to the proper role of government according to the wisdom of common law.
I believe Personhood is a powerful concept, and it needs to be taught and disseminated throughout the culture. However, it is clearly not even a blip on the political radar of America, as election results clearly indicate. Advocates of Personhood should focus their efforts on education, with the eventual goal of creating a critical mass where the issue will be “ripe” for the political arena. Advancing the Pro-life cause in America is too important to be assigning blame and recriminations against those who differ on how to best proceed strategically in moving forward. Sometimes cultural trends lead the political world and sometimes the political world leads the culture; efforts on both fronts are needed. If so-called Incrementalists are successful on the political scene, all prolifers should be glad. Same with those who work and advocate in the community and culture though non-political action; they should be praised. Neither “side” has a corner on importance; the “entire world lies in darkness” and squabbling just prolongs the darkness. That being said, isn’t it essential that we proceed strategically? Are we arrogant and jealous enough to diss one another when we all want the same outcome? Better to humble oneself and look for any advantage and progress and build on it.
The approach favored by Steve Ertelt, who opposes Personhood strategies in favor of incrementalism, has failed us on both fronts – changing courts and passing effective legislation – for related reasons.
As Denise (comment #1 above) notes, the court DID NOT find that an unborn child was a Person, their reasoning being explained in Endnote 54 of Roe v. Wade. Basically, they said since Texas law had exceptions which allowed an innocent unborn child to be killed in some circumstances, then Texas obviously did not consider the unborn to be Persons, and therefore they had no grounds to argue that an unborn child held that status. The text of Roe v. Wade went on to say, though, that if Personhood WERE established (i.e. through a law) then grounds would exist to argue the unborn child as a Person. Incremental laws, unless they’re specifically crafted not to tacitly allow abortion under any circumstance, will always undermine the Personhood argument, as Texas’ law did, and as many other incremental laws have since. Incremental legislation has been a failure at defending and promoting a “Right to Life”, which is what Personhood is.
And any solution which starts by electing Republicans, hoping that they will appoint “pro-life” judges will fail too because it starts at the right place. Only two justices – Scalia and Thomas – have said Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. And (again, as Denise mentions above) Scalia has also said the “Right to Life” is just for “walking around people” (i.e. born humans). American Right to Life has posted a $10,000 challenge for National Right to Life to point to a single statement by any U.S. Supreme Court justice that supports the Right to Life, and the check has gone unclaimed for two years. As illustration, the majority opinion Gonzales vs. Carhart (aka the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban ruling) essentially said the PBA Ban was ineffective because it didn’t ban all late-term abortions, and that it was ONLY constitutional for that reason. The decision (signed by our “pro-life” judges) went on to say that any law which did substantially interfere with the “right” of a woman to get an abortion, it would be unconstitutional by their understanding of Roe v. Wade.
The “Blackmun Hole” Troy Newman refers to in the introduction is an “end-around” to get past Roe v. Wade by declaring an unborn child a Person (the conditions written into Roe v. Wade for making it null and void, as the ruling also suggested). Any other approach will be blocked by Roe v. Wade. But Personhood is a “silver bullet” that will go around it.
Secondly, on the subject of changing the courts, the information I just mentioned proves that changing courts by electing Republicans (who have “no litmus test on abortion”) has been a failure too.
We must, instead, start by changing society, which will then change the political landscape, and THEN politics will change the courts. This has already been shown to work, as in 2006 there were no legislators who supported Personhood, in 2008 there were only about 10 legislators who supported Personhood (plus 2 Colorado Congressmen), but now in 2010 there are about 25-30 legislators who support Personhood – about 1/3 of the chambers (plus 3 Colorado Congressmen). The change in strategy by Colorado pro-lifers – the turn to Personhood – is transforming Colorado’s Republican Party into a real pro-life party (this is the first time a majority of Republican legislators have been pro-life), and is having an impact on the views of our politicians.
Personhood changes the hearts and minds of society, which changes how politicians think, and ultimately that will have an impact upon the courts. This can happen in a relatively short period of time, as the history above (2006-2010) demonstrates.
http://lookontherightside.blogspot.com/2010/03/personhood-works-regulations-dont.html
Lawrence Lehr: I completely see where you’re coming from, but in Colorado we’ve found the political campaign is what ENABLES the education effort. It attracts donations to spread the message, and it involves the Party in the Personhood movement, and vice versa. It becomes a topic of discussion in political debates, and Personhood wriggles its way into the Party Platform. In 2008, Personhood activists were shunned from GOP events (prohibited, by order of the state chairman!) and weren’t welcome at partisan get-togethers. Few political candidates responded to surveys on the subject.
Fast forward to 2010, and MOST Republican candidates for all offices answered surveys, most of them pro-Personhood, Personhood was actively debated and talked about from the stage and on election-focused radio shows, and the state party chairman (the same guy) reversed his position and welcomed Personhood activists into events.
The election became a platform to focus the attention of the public on abortion and the Right to Life, which they might easily have ignored had it not been front-and-center on the ballot. The ballot results were lower than we’d hoped for because Colorado is a swing state and because “banning birth control” became a topic of discussion — something that made people uncomfortable. But now women are thinking about birth control as part of the debate, and wondering if their pills really are abortifacients which are killing their children, which is a positive thing, overall. Look to Mississippi, which has Personhood on their 2011 ballot, and where I expect it will probably win.
@Nathan “Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Kinda like running the personhood amendment a third time after two whopping defeats…
Actually, Bush appointed two judges likely to overturn Roe who already overturned the pro-partial-birth abortion ruling. We just need one more.
@John Changing hearts is great but we need to change the law to protect babies. The personhood amendment won’t change the court or the law.
@Margaret Those of us who think the amendment won’t result in protecting the pre-born are not avoiding the truth of abortion. We point out the truth that the amendment won’t stop abortion.
@Kirk Stopping abortion by changing the courts is doing the right thing. You try again after losing the election, but with the personhood amendment, even if you win, it loses in the court. It will always lose in the court, unless you change the courts, like Steve said. How many times will you keep beating your head against the wall instead of tearing down the wall first?
Vanessa, Amendment 62 in Colorado taught millions of people in that state the value of an unborn child. I think you are missing the bigger picture to call that a failure. On top of that, there was a 10% increase in the number of voters who supported Personhood from 2 years previous. Those are some pretty good practical results as well, don’t you think?
What is it that we teach people by supporting a Republican like Ken Buck who promises to appoint/confirm pro-abortion judges?
I think that Colorado will never vote for Personhood. Continuing the process is dumping money and time down a rat-hole.
And to Keith’s point regarding incrementalists being from the devil… hello everything in the world is done one step at a time. You build a house one brick at a time. You win a war one battle at a time. So stop with the stone throwing and take the log out of your own eye
Lawrence, Personhood campaigns are huge educational vehicles. Having those initiatives on the ballot put the abortion issue on the news more than at any other time.
Personhood supporters typically don’t oppose electing pro-lifers to office. But we do oppose supporting supposed pro-life candidates who are willing to kill less children than the other guy. That type of pragmatic “incrementalism” teaches the world that sometimes it’s ok to kill unborn children. That’s the exact opposite of the lesson that we want to teach.
Nathan,
Of course there is value in public education. If that is what Personhood is doing, why don’t they just admit it and stop bagging on the so-called “incrementalists” who are also educating the public in different ways. There is no one “magic” thing that will end abortion. People are more ready to do it now than ever, but frankly, the fatal flaw in “personhood” at this time is that people perceive it as an attack against contraception and the American people are just not ready to ban contraceptives that may or may not cause abortions. Whether you want to admit it or not, that is just the plain facts of the matter.
If authorities would just enforce the laws we have right now, we could virtually bring the abortion industry to its knees. When people realize how dirty the abortion business is, they turn against it. We should be demanding enforcement of current laws and continue to pass life-saving restrictions. That kind of education through the system is just as valid as a personhood amendment that everyone knows will never pass, if not more profitable, because it actually closes abortion clinics and puts abortionists behind bars now. Personhood can’t make that claim.
Definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Yea, let’s keep running a failed campaign in Colorado… don’t make sense except to those people who believe that we must save every baby in one miracle piece of legislation (that will never happen) all the while babies are being slaughtered at the rate of 3,000 per day.
I looked at the website for the personhood amendment and was very favorably impressed UNTIL I came to the part about”praying the rosary” and saw what seemed like the sponsorship of the Roman Catholic Church. I had also read in the news that an archbishop of that church was working closely with people in that movement. I am not a Roman Catholic and was frankly turned off by what appeared to be an attempt by the Catholic clergy to control and use the personhood movement for their own purposes. I believe that other Christians who don’t belong to that church may have been disparaged by such a display as appeals to Mary the mother of Jesus which we consider idolatrous and simply considered the personhood movement an appendage of that church and therefore had no further connection with it. I believe the personhood amendment would have had much greater support if it had not had such a close connection to the Catholic Church and had simply been a movement without such a close relationship to any particular demonination. If you try again in the future and make a more broad-based appeal for support, you will gather more support. p.s. I called Mr. Newman while he was busy and couldn’t take my call. Could someone in Operation Rescue make sure he sees my comment. Sincerely, Tom Hanig
Casey failed to overturn Roe because, like Roe, there were exceptions. AUL (who’s Clark Forsythe worked on Casey), NRTL and Richard Doerflinger (USCCB) worked behind the scenes to convince the Catholic Conferences in each state to not support Personhood. In Florida, I think, a Bishop forbade collection of signatures at parishes.
If the Catholic Church had supported Personhood CO, the numbers would have been much higher. The Susan B. Anthony List assisted supposed pro-life Republicans get elected. I doubt if any of them are pro-life enough to stand up for the Personhood of the unborn. The incrementalists have knee-capped the Personhood movement because they don’t want the supposed pro-lifers they help get elected challenged by something they don’t have the guts to support. A personhood campaign in their state would back them up to take a chance.
Abortion will never end until the zygote (actually we are human from before that-from the first contact of sperm and oocyte) is recognized as a person. While the incrementalists dithered, our culture has become addicted to abortifacient contraceptives and IVF and prenatal genetic diagnosis. These are the ugly spawn of Roe. Even pro-lifers brag about their IVF babies (who’s brothers and sisters sit in frozen orphanages or who were culled without their knowing it in the petri dish). When pro-life comes to mean, pro-personhood from the biological beginning, we may begin to turn the tide.
Zygotes don’t have arms and so graphic images, or even an ultrasound don’t work for them. More and more women will be having early chemical abortions because they have never heard of the humanity of a one-celled being. The Personhood Movement (and embryology texts)is the only place this is being taught. I pray to God the Catholic Bishops stop listening to AUL, NRTL and their own USCCB Pro-life Secretariat – and join this human rights battle. Mississippi actually has a shot at winning.
The personhood movement misconstrues the legal issues. First, states do not have the power to determine the definition of what constitutes a person when the Constitution, through edict in Roe, has already determined that the fetus is not a person. If the states had the power to determine what constitutes a person, they could also decide who is NOT a person, if they so chose. Hypothetical: if a state were to pass a law saying that 14 year-olds are not persons, would that law pass constitutional muster? Answer: no. The laws were written with the idea in mind that 14 year-olds are persons. But they were not written with the idea in mind that a fetus is a person. Only the federal Constitution itself through amendment, or the court’s interpretation of the Constitution, can change the meaning of person for purposes of federal law when federal law including constitutional law, has made the determination.
Second, Blackmun did not say that if it could be established through law that the fetus is a person that therefore abortion would be illegal. He was saying if it could be established IN FACT that the fetus is a person, that abortion would be illegal. But he said that the court declined to make that determination.
So there are 2 legal avenues open to those that want to reduce abortions. You can pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortions. Or you can attempt to limit abortions as much as possible by passing restrictions that pass constitutional muster. We should always try to do both.
The definition of insanity is doing the same things while expecting different results.
I think the incremental approach has merely entrenched Roe in our Country for over 38 years and now is the time to try something DIFFERENT!
I proudly did my part in Colorado to fight for the protection of ALL human life, and I could care less if our efforts negatively effected the election for weak “Pro Life” candidates who would not support the Personhood effort. They WOULD have gotten my vote if they had supported Amendment 62.
The Personhood movement has educated HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS of people to no longer tolerate laws that end with “…and then you can kill your baby” which is more than ANY other weak Pro Life law, or Politician has done in 38 years.
Praise God for the Personhood movement.
Dan -
Yan,
Roe v. Wade clearly indicates that the states are the originators of such determinations of Personhood, and Endnote 54 indicates that since Texas (the state with standing in that case) had exceptions (i.e. restrictions, not a ban) for abortions, they couldn’t argue an unborn child is a Person.
The language of Roe v. Wade is also clear that they were not requiring a finding of “fact” for Personhood, which is an ethical/moral concept and cannot be established as “fact” outright. The language says “if Personhood were established” (i.e. by a state or by Congress), then unborn children would naturally be protected under the 14th Amendment.
A challenge to Roe and/or to the very ability to take one life over another requires a case from a state that would go up the chain of courts — that’s what a statewide Personhood amendment would do.
Tom Hanig on November 22nd, 2010 6:55 pm wrote:
” I am not a Roman Catholic and was frankly turned off by what appeared to be an attempt by the Catholic clergy to control and use the personhood movement for their own purposes.”
Tom,
I am not Catholic either and frankly take exception with their doctrines, but I have come to realize that we have far more in common than in opposition. I really do not wish to stand before God and explain to Him why I was not participating in a life saving effort because I was busy with doctrinal debate. Life is far more important than what we believe about doctrinal issues.
In Tacoma we are seeing great things in the form of lives saved and the hearts and minds of the community transformed in response to our fervent and ongoing prayers. In addition, I keep record of the participation in our local prayer vigil and to the disgrace of the protestant churches, the faithful prayer warriors are predominantly Catholic (about 80%) I have never met a more sincere and loving group of people dedicating their time and efforts to defend life. I see absolutely no coercion by their clergy to “control” anything. I hope that you will recognize any contentions about denomination in the pro-life movement as divisive and destructive. I absolutely adore the little old Catholic ladies who come out to the prayer vigil time and again in the rain, snow and cold to cry out to God. There is no contention in their hearts. Where is the rest of the Body?
There is not a problem of commission here but of omission. I can’t tell you how many churches I have approached to ask them to simply pray in their churches during the 40 days only to get the “talk to the hand” treatment. When our hearts become so callous that we cannot even pray for our unborn brothers and sisters, the problem does not lay with the government, it lies with all of us.
Unity is essential. Without it we have no chance.
Reply to Tom Hanig:
If you saw the rosary mentioned on some personhood site, it was to include Catholics. The Personhood movement is being led by Protestants – mainly non-denominational. If you saw a Bishop supporting it, he was the extreme exception. Archbishop Chaput of Denver, one of the most celebrated Catholic pro-life leaders, did not endorse it because of advice from lawyers from AUL, NRTL and the USCCB’s pro-life secretariat. Personhood is not a religious concept. The movement is open to people of all faiths and no faith (although people of faith are more highly motivated, as were our abolitionist forebearers, because we believe that we are made in the image and likeness of God).It is based on the fact that there is no such thing as a human being who is not a person. The lawyers can throw in their opinions and the theologians can, too. Doesn’t change the fact that humans are different from animals. We are persons, right from the very beginning. It’s our identity. Human=person. No split. No “potential” personhood.
While the incrementalists “reduce” abortions, the tidal wave from Planned Parenthood, the IVF industry etc. are smashing them into the sand. Got to paddle faster if you’re going to get to shore with your civil rights intact. “Created equal” in the Declaration means from the beginning, not birth. Chew on that, lawyers and lobbyists!
Michaela,
I want to clarify that most Colorado Catholics supported Amendment 62 (the Personhood Amendment), and even most priests did. The higher leadership at the Archdiocese allowed parishes their choice as to whether to participate, and I understand participation at Catholic churches was more substantial this year than in 2008. I even had a conversation with a Catholic priest about it — he was 100% on our side, but seemed disappointed in the Archbishop for not doing more. There was no active opposition in Colorado from the Archbishop, though, as there has been in a couple of other states. The opposition is based in “strategy” disagreements, not in theological disagreements.
And while Guabe — one of two cosponsors — is Catholic, you’re correct that most of the leadership in Colorado’s Personhood movement is Protestant. However, the middle-rank leadership is mixed between Catholic and Protestant, and I suspect leadership in other states is mixed also. This is the greatest degree of cooperation I’ve seen between Catholics and Protestants on a single goal, and it’s wonderful to see.
Who wants to see a picture of snow? Troy in the sunshine would be better!
Division, disputes and contention will not get us anywhere! We need to make room in our agendas to appreciate and support various tactics, missions and religious beliefs.
Direct-action “incrementalist” are at the abortuaries saving lives by persuading potential clients to keep their child and by their presence educating, sometimes convicting the public and an indifferent church.
Prayer as 40 Days for Life illustrates and informational picketing is important. As a result a PP manager quit and is going public about their inner workings. She’s a threat because PP tried to get a restraining order to shut her mouth. Thanks to 40 Days for Life she got out of the abortion industrial complex!
Live Action is exposing PP with investigative journalism. All of us use Live Action’s findings for education, political lobbying, personhood amendments etc; and oh I almost forgot how many pro-life organizations have booked Lilah to speak at their fund-raisers.
The GAP project brings a bold, graphic apologetic to the college campus where future presidents, judges or administrator’s mind is formed. Justice for all does the same. Georgia Right to Life has the billboard campaign, so does Pro-Life Across America.
In short it’s not all or nothing.
I’m involved in direct action full-time , but I sign petitions, make calls to legislators, fwd LifeNews articles to the local media, work with students and co-sponsor Maafa showings on campus, distribute HLA’s publications to churches (soon barbershops) and work with PHCs in our area. When a personhood amendment comes to my state I’ll support it as well. Will I work full time on another groups agenda? Of course not, but I can be supportive. I cannot sidewalk counsel, run a PHC and lobby the legislature at the same time, nor should I.. I can’t do everything full time or part-time and neither can you.
The key here is to build a culture of life. You cannot build that culture by yourself, PP doesn’t. They lobby, recruit celebrities, subsidize community based non-profits and in my state ran a campaign to keep BPA’s out of baby bottles- can you believe that? Any squabbles about maintaining an abortion culture they keep behind closed doors.
Unfortunately there is enough misery, death and devastation to keep us all busy doing what we were called to do and the way we do it. It’s not either or.
I want to thank Steve Ertelt for his outstanding commitment for life and excellent reporting. I am always amazed and impressed with your integrity to true journalism.
@B. Walker:
Lila Rose is not an incrementalist.
Anyone who has worked more than 10 minutes to stop abortion is an incrementalist. Personhood is an incremental strategy by nature because:
1). It works through successful unsuccessful campaigns over years of time.
2). It cannot stop all abortions in every state at once, therefore, it must take an incremental state by state (over and over) approach.
Someone on this thread indicated that abortion restrictions work, when enforced. Why not use the tools we have to close mills and save lives while we work toward full legal protections for the preborn? It sounds like many of the personhood folks would rather see every baby die than to see them saved through legislation that doesn’t measure up to their standard of perfection. That doesn’t seem like the best plan to me, especially not for the babies that can be saved by closing mills now while we wait for a personhood tactic to actually work.
B.Walker & Annie,
There is a widespread misunderstanding of where the “incremental vs. Personhood” divide is. The divide is 100% in the political arena. We regularly cooperate on other things — direct action, like you say B. Walker. My friends are at the clinic, asking people not to abort their children. We put up billboards. We educate the public. We organize showings of Maafa21 to Black churches and pastors. We cooperate with Justice for All, Live Action and many other groups. We protest at the homes of construction company presidents whose companies build abortion megacenters.
And Lila Rose, Live Action, Human Life Alliance (HLA) and Georgia Right to Life are all pro-Personhood. To my knowledge they do not promote political regulations (i.e. incrementalism).
When a law is on the books — the laws Live Action seeks to enforce, the laws Phill Kline held George Tiller to account for, etc. — it’s not wrong to expect someone to follow the law. The Personhood movement opposes putting these laws into place in the first place for one reason and one reason only — they undermine the concept of a Right to Life by teaching the public it’s the government’s job to determine when abortions are appropriate.
If it’s up to the government to say which babies may be killed or which must be protected, then there is a tacit understanding those children (whether killed or saved) do NOT have a Right to Life. Instead, it’s a policy decision by the government which will always be on a line drawn between 0% and 100%. Usually that line will tend toward 50% or 70% killed, 30% saved. That’s a losing proposition because it teaches the public abortion is a policy issue with a policy solution.
http://lookontherightside.blogspot.com/2010/03/personhood-works-regulations-dont.html
Incrementalism is a political strategy — pass laws to restrict abortion. These laws are the modern-day equivalent of the anti-slavery laws that said you may own a slave in Missouri but not in Maine. Or that a Black man is considered a citizen in Michigan, unless he’s owned by a southerner, in which case he must be returned to his owner.
William Wilberforce started out calling for Personhood for the Black man. Frustrated, he began looking for incremental ways to save them — passing laws to regulate the number of slaves per vessel. But eventually he realized he wasn’t achieving his goal through incrementalism, because British society didn’t learn the right lesson from incrementalism. His society hadn’t recognized Black men as Persons — they’d simply passed laws to make sure enslaved “subhumans” were treated more humanely. This is very like what we’re seeing today in America. Wilberforce was pro-Personhood (i.e. anti-incrementalism) for the last 18 years of his life.
http://coloradorighttolife.blogspot.com/2008/11/william-wilberforce-proof-that.html
Personhood says abortion is a matter of principle, and no child may be legally killed for any reason — the government has no say, other than to do their duty and protect the children (ALL of them). Personhood teaches there is a Right to Life for the unborn, no matter how old they are, or what the circumstances are.
Saving a life here and there is fine, and I’ve stood in front of abortion mills for exactly that approach. However I have two questions to ask about what some are calling “incrementalism”.
***
Question #1 – Where do we get the authority to “barter” on God’s command “Do not murder”?
I relaize the world doesn’t accept God’s command, but where did we, as christians, get the authority to barter down on God’s position? Would He approve of us doing a little “give and take” on His command? Or will we have to answer for that on judgement day?
***
Question #2 — Aren’t most of our so-called “pro-life” laws, really pro-abortion laws?
If a law says “wait three days” or “get parental consent” or “have a note from your doctor” and then we will allow you to kill your baby … isn’t that a pro-abortion law, not a pro-life law?
How is it pro-life to create a law that essentially ends with “… and then you have our permission to kill your baby.”?
Question #2 -
@ Brain Cross. Answer: No most of our prolife laws are NOT pro-abortion laws that end with “now you can kill your baby”
Babies have already been sentenced to death. They are being murdered and will continue to be murdered at an incredible rate. However, in attempt to save some, laws have been enacted to slow the death rate, while we work to save every baby sentenced to die.
I reject that notion that we must “save every baby, before we save any”
Every war is won by collective victories. The battle for life is no different. I don’t have the room in this port to show you all the victories we have made in the last two decades and how many babies have been saved.
I rejoiced, as I read all the heartfelt messages from each person who has commented. I thank the LORD for each person, who has worked so diligently to protect our Posterity, the yet unborn of each decade.
The Sovereign LORD has declared His unique creation of each new human being made in His image. Over and over in the Scriptures it is stated, “She conceived and bore a son (a few times the daughter is mentioned),” and “She is with child.” The LORD honors His Word. When we speak His Truth, the Holy Spirit confirms it to the listener. No where does the LORD give authority to kill the unborn through abortion. There has been such deception in our land to legalize such an evil practice. Only the Holy Spirit can change the hearts of the citizens. “Personhood” goes right to the “heart” of this evil by declaring the LORD’s Truth. The Sword of the Spirit must continue. Our nation is under God’s judgements; however, the LORD is continuing to save individuals, and conviction by the Holy Spirit through the efforts of the “Personhood” campaign is one of the powerful tools being used, as well as prayer vigils, side walk counselors, graphic sign displays, PRC’s and PMC’s across this land, and using current laws to shut down abortion clinics and abortionists. The LORD has many avenues to defeat the evil of killing His creation by abortion. All avenues cost money, time, and personal sacrifice. Let us support eachother with prayer, encouragement, and monies as we are able and “led to.” Our unity is at the foot of the Cross of Jesus, Who died for each of us sinners. If He is directing the course of action, then it is not “without reward,” for He will accomplish what He wants to do. Blessings to each of you as we speak His Truth in love.
The most astonishing aspect of this whole debate is that right here in the twenty first century there are still delusional humans who believe in imaginary deitiy(ies) and worse think those beliefs entitle them to dictate to everyone else on how to behave.
http://www.godisimaginary.com
I dare all religionists to read the information in that link with an open mind…I say they lack the intellectual integrity to even do that.
Hi Karl,
If you bother to come back. I notice there is no space for discussion on your page so I will offer some here.
Question:
Do any of us individually or corporately know ALL things?
How can you conclusively state that there is no God as you cannot say He does not exist somewhere in the knowledge you do not possess?
An honest atheist will acknowledge that he does not know all things and seek to know if God exists. It is pivotal to all of life if there is or is not a God.
A dishonest atheist will claim that he can conclusively know there is no God. In other words, don’t bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
Which one are you Karl?
You list 50 reasons to reject God on your page.
These are simply 50 excuses.
I’ve used them myself so I am familiar with them.
Here is my list of the 5 real reasons that people reject God:
1. What’s in it for me?
2. No ones going to tell me what to do.
3. I’m never wrong.
4. I’d have to give things up.
5. I don’t like the guilty feeling.
Which ones fit for you Karl?
You have gone to great lengths to convince people to believe as you believe. How about a little turnabout here:
“and worse think those beliefs entitle you to dictate to everyone else on how to behave”.
What is it you are trying to achieve here Karl? To get others to behave as you believe?
If you would like to discuss further I would invite you to contact me directly rather than use this forum as it is off topic.
john@thetruthpage.org
I am opposed to the state “personhood” strategy, which is ill-conceived and poorly thought out, for reasons I explained in my article, A Fool’s Errand: State “Personhood” Proposals, which appeared in the Fall 2009 issue of the Human Life Review. Curiously, neither Mr. Ashley nor any one of the supporters of the “personhood” approach attempts to develop or even sketch a legal (as opposed to a moral or religious) argument defending state “personhood” proposals. The failure to weigh in, even with a comment on this website, on the legal merits is surely significant. The fact that Personhood USA pulled out of the debate when they were informed that all comments (other than ad hominem ones) would be posted, without editing, speaks volumes about their unwillingness (or inability) to carry their side of the debate (or even to participate in one).
In Roe the Court held that the unborn child is not a “person” as that term is used in sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and, therefore, is not entitled to the protection of either the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause of that Amendment. No justice on the Court–then or since–dissented from that holding, including the justices who are (or who are believe to be) “anti-Roe.” In his partial dissent in Casey (1992), Justice Scalia, writing for himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White and Justice Thomas, stated that the States may allow abortion on demand, if they choose, but they are not constitutionally required to do so. This comment should put to rest the notion that there is any support on the Court to revisit the “personhood” holding of Roe (and, for the reasons explained by Denise Mackura, the adoption of “personhood” would not be a legal panacea for abortion).
As Yan perceptively noted in his comment, the States have no power to determine who is a “person” for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, otherwise you could have conflicting definitions from State to State. That power is reserved to the Supreme Court (and, ultimately, Congress and the States in proposing and adopting a federal constitutional amendment). States have no authority to interpret the federal constitution or to determine for themselves what words used in the federal constitution shall mean.
There are many productive things prolifers can do to advance the pro-life cause. Supporting state constitutional “personhood” proposals, however, is not one of them.
Response to Paul Linton:
I think the Roe decision was based on the “fact” that there was no agreement or consensus (or courage on the part of physicians) on the personhood of the fetus. I’m sorry that they were looking for consensus instead of truth, but I believe that was their excuse.
The court didn’t decide that the fetus was not a person, but that society didn’t agree on the definition (and the Texas law didn’t recognize personhood either, since it allowed exceptions). The Personhood movement is trying to rectify that situation by challenging everyone from politicians, lawyers, doctors and shoppers at WalMart to agree that personhood is from the beginning.
Because Roe didn’t define personhood, Roe can be circumvented by a state ammendment that doesn’t even mention abortion. And Paul, where in the constitution does it say that the power to define personhood is reserved to the federal government? Could you expand on that point?
There’s a legal argument for you from a Colorado personhood activist.
Am enjoying this debate and looking forward to rebuttals
Michaela Dasteel has confused two related, but distinct issues in Roe, one of which was when human life begins (which the Court did not decide) and whether the unborn child (“fetus” in the Court’s lexicon) is a “person” as that word is used in the Fourteenth Amendment. Contrary to Ms. Dasteel’s understanding, the Court did decide “that the fetus [is] not a person.” Regardless of what anyone may think of the reasoning that led to that holding, what is important to recognize is that no one on the Court has ever questioned the “personhood” holding in Roe, and that includes all of the anti-Roe justices–Byron White, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Samuel Alito (assuming that the latter two are anti-Roe)–who have ever sat on the Court. That none of these justices ever questioned the “personhood” holding of Roe should give pause to anyone thinking of pursuing “personhood” via state constitutional amendments.
States may not, by state constitutional amendment or otherwise define terms used in the federal constitution or determine how the federal constitution should be interpreted. As Yan pointed out in his perceptive comment, that would allow the States to come up with conflicting definitions and interpretations of the same document (the United States Constitution) that governs throughout the country. That is nonsensical. The federal constitution cannot mean one thing in Hawaii and another thing in Colorado.
The power of judicial review is implicit (albeit not explicit) in the United States Constitution. Under a line of Supreme Court cases going back to 1803 (Marbury v. Madison), determining what the Constitution means is a matter for the courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, to decide, not the political branches of either the States or the United States (other, of course, than by passing and ratifying a federal constitutional amendment). No one who sits on the Court, or who is ever likely to sit on the Court, disputes that fundamental principle.
I appreciate Ms. Dasteel’s response, but she has not presented a legal argument in favor of pursuing the “personhood” approach. That approach should be recognized for what it is–a regrettable and entirely avoidable waste of everyone’s time and effort that will only result in further demoralization of the pro-life movement as, over time, supporters of “personhood” gradually begin to realize that its promises cannot and will not be met.
Steve Ertelt does good work letting people know what is going on in national and world abortion news. Personhood does good work in attacking the abortion scams at their obvious key lying point of pretending babies aren’t people. The real problem is ignorance– in that the public isn’t functionally aware of what abortion actually is, how horrible abortion is, and how it prostitutes the entire society. The abortion industry is like a giant octopus with myriad tentacles, and it has to be met and overcome on many fronts simultaneously. Like we beat Hitler by attacking on both Eastern and Western fronts, and by keeping him guessing as to where we might attack next (e.g. via Norway, or maybe the Balkans in addition to the Eastern and Western fronts), we can keep the abortion industry more on the defensive if they face many challenges on many fronts simultaneously. It is a mistake for anyone to set themselves up as the Great Decider who knows the One Magic Formula that will bust the dam of abortion’s extensive murderous lies. Let everyone pursue their own area of excellence and committment, and spread the word to more citizens and particularly voters. We need to fight abortion, not one another. As I said earlier, the key problem is general voter ignorance and apathy. On all fronts, word has to be gotten to the public, particularly to young children, what abortion actually is. That’s why the gory pictures (disgusting as they are) need to be more widely circulated– especially so little kids, who are still young enough to learn, will always remember that abortion is murder, and understand the facts on a basic instinctive level for the rest of their lives. Once hormones start clouding their judgement, they become very hard to educate. Spread the news about abortion, yes! Get personhood amendments to classify babies as the persons they are, yes! Get good non-weaseling politicians elected, yes! Educate the voters through letters to the editor, and speaking to your friends, yes! Hold church leaders to noble standards, instead of letting them prostitute their churches to soft-pedal abortion in order to get more money in the collection plate, yes! Show the pictures of what abortion actually is, so the truth is undeniable, yes! Teach the little children the truth, before Planned Parenthood comes to first grade classes to warp them for the rest of their lives, yes! And do anything else you can think of to spread the word, so that the lies of the abortion industry can be exposed to the light of day. Planned Parenthood and all abortion mills hate the truth, especially the gory pictures that speak a thousand words. And be prepared to fight for the babies, and deal with abortion’s rigged unpleasantness, because they are not going to give up their millions of dollars of blood money without a fight, without more lying, and without lying about you– including in manufactured court case frame-ups!! So be prepared to face up to the challenges, and keep marching against abortion’s myriad evils on ALL fronts. Abortionists offer no mercy, and they deserve none.
As St. Paul said he would do anything to win a convert. This is what I feel (legally) to do the same for saving babies. Personhood alread is in reality. On the laws we have (and I compare them to the laws the Jews had when Jesus was here ) the pew sitters said it is ok to abort.
If we reject any laws that permit abortion, the Pro-Death side will appeal, appeal, appeal, they too will do as St. Paul did (of course on the side of darkness.)
The body needs to do this as many times as it takes to make it happen (personhood.) I compare it to the school budgets in NY State, it may run many times till it get’s approved. The body of Christ operates just like any body. The legal side, the spiritual side, the helping side, the compassionate side, the forgiving side etc. All parts of the body of Christ need to pursue to the ultimate till many many babies are saved.
Often I think of Deut 18:10, there they sacrificed their kids in the fire. Now we are pro-active we sacrifice them in the womb. If you ever see the picture of a baby killed in the womb by saline (skin burned,) you will see how accurate this passage is. You will never forget this passage if you see the picture.
Keep going body of Christ ! Churches, DO DO Do mention abortion in the service, offer the forgiveness of Christ for the ones who have done it male and female. Voters vote life. I did, and it cost me my unemployment check, but what is worth more, money or life?
God Bless
-Bill
Paul Linton is simply wrong. During the election period ads can be aired that cannot be aired during the rest of the decade. Planned Parenthood has lost directors with long years of service when they see the fetus fight for its little life. Women by the hundreds every week turn away from abortion when they see the evidence of intelligent life in the womb. And you want us to come up with a clever legal argument?
Survivors of Abortion is a group of young people who tour the U.S. going to college campuses showing the brutal visual images of abortion. I have been with them at the Earth Day Celebration in San Diego. Almost no one passes these images without making some kind of a comment. But how many want to stop and dialogue with me about legal issues?
Finally, I do not believe that trying to elect pro-life legislators is a waste of time. It is a good idea because it enlarges the debate. But why would anyone wish to deride the efforts of personhood amendments? If you consider it ineffective, do your pro-life work where you wish. Just do something.
But on a legal note, Paul, do a bit of research on what a 14th Amendment “person” really is and maybe you will come to the startling revelation that you, like me, are not such persons at all. I live in California, I am not a resident of D.C. http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/art2.html
Can someone explain the problem with the Colorado voters? Why weren’t they more supportive of the amendment?
If our Catholic priests and bishops were properly teaching and admonishing us on issues of faith and morals from the pulpit, the 68 million or so Catholics who compose the church militant would be challenged to do two things (at least)
1. Properly form their conscience to recognize what an abomination abortion is as well as other moral issues such as fetal stem cell research, contraception, homosexuality and premarital cohabitation.
2. Use that properly disposed, well informed conscience to vote into office people who will best represent the highest moral standards.
People by and large need to be led and need to be educated with the Truth as opposed to someone’s version of the truth, i.e. propoganda.
They can still reject the truth and vote on an issue based on how they “feel” instead of what is good and right, but the responsibility for exposing people to the Truth lies with our priests and bishops.
Just my humble opinion as a Catholic of the non-cafeteria sort.
William Wilberforce was part of the ultimate “incremental” approach. He was wise enough to recognize that the anti-slavery forces could not begin with banning slavery. Instead they began with banning the slave trade, which ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. The incremental strategy did work.
I think this ‘argument’ is in itself ludicrous. I don’t care by what means we eliminate legalized abortion from our society. I say we must pursue the fight on all fronts. Moral, legal, medical, sociological; religious, constitutional; incremental and all-at-once efforts are all beneficial. Different people will be convinced by different approaches. This infighting is counterproductive. We should all take such action as we feel called to do, and while it’s helpful to invite others to join ‘your’ method, it isn’t helpful to criticize others because they take a different route.
I’ve refrained from commenting intentionally. However, I think a quick note about the discrepancy in Mr. Ertelt’s(29%) and my(30%) A62 result numbers is in order. The Colorado Secretary of State has posted official election results here…
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2010/general/ColoradoReport.html
Totals for “Yes” on A62 are listed at 29.5%, and when rounding to the nearest whole number, the rules of mathematics require us to round up to 30. Of course, it’s most accurate to report the results as 29.5%.
A48 numbers can be found here…
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/ElectionArchives/2008/2008_Abstract.pdf
Net gain from 2008 to 2010 is 2.7%. The more accurate whole number in this case is 3.
I have also refrained from posting a comment since Operation Rescue has been so gracious to let us debate these topics and post our thoughts.
In response to the “inaccurate” numbers, the figures I put in my post came from LifeNews.com reports and the numbers in those reports were accurate when written at press time. Those reports came on election night prior to the final tally of all votes by the Secretary of State following the election but after the vote on the amendment had been called by other media outlets and after most votes had been counted. Obviously, there was a very slight change between the percentages we reported in the returns at press time and what the state reported when all votes were counted.
So, yes, I should have used the final numbers to provide better accuracy in the mathin my rebuttal post, but the point remains that both Colorado personhood amendments bombed.
They didn’t come anywhere close to passing in either an election where turnout favored the pro-life side or the pro-abortion side. And a 2.7 percent net gain is still short of the 7 percent figure in terms of the partisan shift from 2008 to 2010. If your argument holds water, and the personhood amendment substantially moves the base, the gain should have come in at a clip higher than seven percent (or at least closer to it). It did not and, by the figures you cited from the Secretary of State, it lost 4.3 percent from one election to the next taking the turnout shift into account.
Under the best election turnout scenario in 16 years, the amendment still lost by a mile and it will lose by an equally large margin in 2012 when Obama is back on the ballot and Democrats turn out in higher numbers than they did last month.
Mr. Ertelt is wrong about it being a good year for conservatives in Colorado.
In fact, every statewide office was won by openly pro-abortion candidates (with the exception of Secretary of State)
The Weekly Standard found that Colorado actually had a six percent higher Democrat turnout than it had in 2008, so with that in mind, as well as the fact that no establishment pro-life organizations helped, while all the enemies of lies piled on, a 3% gain is a positive result.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gop-won-greater-percentage-senate-house-seats_515085.html#read-more
I would also ask the rhetorical question to Mr. Ertelt: does he really believe that America is more pro-life today than it was in 1973? or have we lowered the bar on what it means to be pro-life so that it is easier to consider people pro-life – and for politicians to label themselves as pro-life…
Scientifically, embryologically, biologically,and genetically, there is, in the typical scenario, a no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique new biologic entity, with a gender, that had previously simply not existed. No scientist, embryologist, or geneticist would ever dispute that biologic fact. All that new being now needs is nutrition and a warm place to grow. If the moment of conception (i.e. fertilization) is not the moment of “personhood” — then what is?
For anyone with more interest, the topic is discussed on the cardiothoracic surgery web site “CTS net” under the “In My Opinion” section under my name.
Respectfully submitted,
Fritz Baumgartner,MD
Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery
UCLA School of Medicine
Abortion is not an opinion, it is a crime, it is murder and it is a denial of human dignity.
Killing a human being cannot be made an issue of debate. Human dignity cannot be made an issue of debate and certainly not something to be subjected to the will of a majority.
Human life and therefore, human dignity, starts at conception and through natural death. Any dissenting point is what needs to be proved, not by polls or plebiscites but by establishing the ‘other answer’, the one that makes sense, that is irrefutable and that categorically and without doubt, puts principle at the mercy of the majority.
This matter is not exclusive of the selfishness of of some women or wannabe ‘doctors’ that want to put their selfishness before any even their own dignity, because the matter of living under the rule of the majority is established through the reign of collectivism, where individualism is exploited to be at the mercy of selfishness, materialism and hedonism, as well as many other degenerative forms of degradation. This is what comes form the denial of natural law and order and from following the absurd, the idea that everything is a consequence of a sequence of accidents, where not only there is not a divine plan, but that there is not accountability and therefore responsibility which in essence means that humans do not really have free will or freedom for that matter, because anything that happens is just accidental, and so it will be up to science and technology to ‘fix’ the inconvenience, period, no harm done.
Faith is what is needed as opposed to fear, hope as opposed to despair, and most importantly, love, as opposed to selfishness. These three virtues are dependent and coming from God almighty and omnipotent, there is no other possibility, because it is Him who gave us our dignity by creating us to His image and likeness.
To remove God from any consideration is to deny ourselves and simply put is to live in the darkness of a lie.
There is nothing to be debated about the calamity known as abortion and there is not middle ground, only the truth, life starts at conception and through natural death.
If some political establishment still wants to submit the question to vote, it will imperative to volunteer other ‘truths’ but that will be relativism and as such, there will not be any truth only prevalence of egos and the triumph of popularity over principle, over the absolute truth, the only one that can exist and make everyone a creature of God.
We are all individuals, we have dignity and we are not equals to each other but before God, because we possess identity.
You can’t compromise on babies’ lives! When you support a law that forbids abortions over 20 weeks, but gives free reign to abortions under 20 weeks, you are responsible for all the little ones killed before 20 weeks.
Wilberforce was not dealing with wholesale slaughter; WE ARE !!!
Karen’s post is typical of what I consider flawed thinking on behalf of many who support Personhood amendments. Their premise is wrong, therefore they come to faulty conclusions. They think that clinic regulations will allow babies to die. That isn’t true. Roe v. Wade has condemned every child in the womb in America, whether there are clinic regulations/restrictions or not. The question now becomes, how can we save as many babies as we can under these conditions until the condition that condemn every baby changes. Abortion restrictions, while perhaps not changing the conditions that have caused all pre-born babies to be at risk, do in fact save babies and sometimes even close abortion clinics and put abortionists behind bars. To say those that saving as many babies as we can is condemning the rest to death is just plain wrong. Those babies were all condemned already. Let’s say you came across a shipwreck with 100 drowning people in the water. You have a small boat that will only hold ten. You row out and save ten. Would you then be tried for murdering 90 people because you did not have the right conditions to save them all? Of course not. Abortion restrictions don’t end with “then you can kill a baby.” They end with “now you can save some babies and close an abortion mill.” I will take these bills all day long until we can finally abolish abortion altogether, something that the Personhood amendments have not been able to do, either. Final note: To oppose regulatory legislation that will save babies is immoral, in my opinion. It is the illogical attitude that we should kill as many babies as we can until we can save them all. It doesn’t even make any sense.
REPLY TO PAUL LINTON:
Here’s the Achilles heel of the Roe decision. Read the following passages from Roe in light of embryos being created in petri dishes and frozen outside the womb for years. This focues attention on their identity separate from the mother or even from their “potential”. It focuses on their identity and what their DNA reveals. I think that these “Brave New World” developments can actually help to bypass Roe the way the Dred Scott decision (which was never reversed) was bypassed by the 14th ammendment. Maybe even without the need for another amendment to the US constitution.
ROE:
The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed.1965)… As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that, at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman’s privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.
NOTE: Biologically, there is no such thing as potential human life. Human life, according to embryology texts, begins when the sperm contacts the oocyte. Roe gets the science wrong. Also, here they are stating that the State can decide that “at some point in time” the interest of that “potential life” can become involved. Personhood movement is saying that the states can establish that point in time as the biological beginning and that since personhood is a quality of human life, the biological beginning is also the beginning of personhood.
Roe goes on to say:
The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
NOTE: There you go.
The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
NOTE: State Personhood ammendments or laws will bring that case without mentioning abortion.
….All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
NOTE: The court was fed incorrect information about those 19th century practices. I think they were siting PC historians with an agenda. Do you agree?
In spite of how the numbers and percentages are crunched, I think the Personhood push did know success and in a way that we cannot measure. By this I mean we cannot measure how many hearts were touched and changed.
I think it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. Maybe not. But it we can make the intrinsic evil of abortion look to be unthinkable in many many minds, the numbers of abortions will go down.
Having said that, the road to abortion starts long before a pregnant mother pulls into an abortuary. It is the immoral push of society that is seeking the minds and bodies of our children at younger and younger ages. As sex is more and more promoted and also the fallacy of “safe sex”, there will be unwanted pregnancies.
At the very least as we bring the knowledge of personhood of the unborn to the voters, we might be able to prevent some of these unwanted pregnancies from ending in the murder of an unborn child.
Troy,
I appreciate your framing of the moral issue and juxtaposing it against our legal situation. Of course you are right that the fetus is a human being [whether we support personhood amendments or not, we here all agree on that]. As you say, it follows that any law permitting abortion, even if it restricts the ease or speed with which an abortion can be procured, does not rise to the level of meeting God’s requirement that human society is morally obliged to forbid the intentional taking of innocent human life. Our pro-life laws do not succeed at accomplishing that.
However, the rule of law prevents us from doing any better. And personhood amendments, no matter how well-intentioned, will not accomplish the goal of outlawing abortion either, because they are all unconstitutional. The states cannot decide for themselves who is a person and who is not. There is not a single justice that believes that the Constitution was written with the idea that a fetus is a person entitled to the full protection of the law.
Personally, I agree with that judgment of the meaning of the Constitution. This is why we need a constitutional amendment–a personhood amendment for the entire nation, not for a state. But of course, this is politically impossible at present. So that leaves us in the grip of the moral dilemma you originally proposed.
There are only 2 moral solution that I can think of. The first is the solution which those that followed Jesus to the crucifixion lived: we continue to publicly witness to the injustice of our laws in protest as this nation sends its innocents to be crucified for the selfishness of men, which they believe to be for the common good. So did the pharisees and chief priests believe about the death of Jesus. But I do not believe God judged Mary and the women and John who followed Jesus to the cross because they did not take up arms against the soldiers in order to prevent the crucifixion of God. Had they attempted to do so, their efforts would have been in vain.
The second solution is to do our best to hold back the hand of the satanic slayer by whatever legal means are at our disposal. And that means, incrementalism in any way possible, with the goal of a full federal constitutional amendment protecting the life of every innocent unborn child.
Such amendments have been proposed a number of times in the Senate, where the Constitution says they must begin, and have never received the required 2/3 vote. This is why voting for pro-life Senators is so important!
Troy thank you for all your work and may God continue to bless you and operation rescue. I believe you are doing the most important work in terms of action in the public square that can be done at this moment in the history of this country.
Regards,
Yan
Sorry–my previous post should have referred to Brian Cross #30, not Troy.
As a violinist (viola) partly by the Suzuki method, I am fully and well aware of the personhood of the unborn, by whatever definitions, names, or terminology.
Part of the Suzuki method is to play music for the unborn child, say an hour a day. After birth, when the child is old enough to hold a little instrument, he or she begins to play…….
The ability to learn and remember is known.
As a delivery room nurse I continued to be amazed at the the uniqueness and individuality of each newborn child, their awareness and responses, “personalities”, facial expressions, etc………
Not only common sense but scientific evidence would have us “get it” the PERSONHOOD OF HUMAN LIFE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING!
@William DeGaul Thanks for proving my point further.
According to Keith and personhood amendment backers, the amendment is supposedly responsible for producing amazing results in turnout and motivating pro-lifers. If Colorado had a higher turnout of Democrats in 2010 compared with 2008, then the amendment clearly has not only no effect on motivating pro-lifers — but had us lose ground.
With that kind of track record, having the amendment in any state in 2012 will help ensure an Obama victory and legalized abortion for decades more.
@Steven Ertelt Wrong again
There’s a programing maxim which I think you would be wise to heed. Garbage in = Garbage out.
Personhood in = Personhood out, weak kneed GOP in = status quo or worse.
Regarding the turnout, your point seems to be circular.
First you state that Personhood didn’t even pass in the most positive political climate imaginable. When I give proof that actually, the voter turnout was stronger for the Dems in 2010 than even in 2008, you accuse Personhood of depressing GOP turnout or increasing Dem turnout? That is just impossible logic, since if Personhood was the cause of a higher Dem or lower GOP turnout, then it would have lost percentage points, which did not happen.
Here’s the main flaw in your analysis: what is the definition of a pro-lifer? Under your standard almost anybody can be considered a pro-lifer, so you get excited and claim great victories. What a surprise it must for you when those GOP politicians turn out to appoint pro-aborts, ignore the abortion holocaust and entrench abortion for another decade.
Back to the computer maxim, garbage in = garbage out. Personhood gets 27 %, then 30 %, in 2012 ( and it will happen in 2012) 35%, and all the time we are educating and knowing for a fact that these numbers are true reflections of where we stand. You, on the other hand would tell us 51% of Americans are “pro-life” and then be sorely disappointed to find out that they are pro-life and happy with the ongoing genocide, in part thanks to a lowering of standards that makes it ok to be ineffectual.
Colorado is changing the culture and converting people to be 100% pro-life.
Attacking at the level of the Supreme Court directly, which is essentially what Personhood efforts do, was successfully done recently in Iowa. We got rid of 3 devious Iowa Supreme Court “Justices” who twisted and turned and used their offices cynically to commit a tort of contempt for justice– in perverting the Iowa Constitution– so as to (on paper) authorize homosexual marriage. An aroused and educated citizenry turned those 3 mistaken judicial figures out of a job, and the equivalent can be done in other states. Personhood efforts educate the public about what abortion actually is, and the more personhood efforts educate the public, the more the public will gravitate toward ending abortion and demanding the right political figures (at all levels)to do it. Slavery wasn’t ended in a campaign cycle or two. It took broadly-based citizen to citizen education over many years, plus a civil war. Abortion mills’ lies have been so extensive for so long it will take a protracted effort to overcome them. Personhood efforts are for the good, and electing competent politicians is for the good. Just electing a governor here or there who is against abortion won’t work unless the corresponding legislature also does the right thing, and it takes grassroots understanding by the voters to get the theoretical good legislature to back the theoretical good governor, or good Congress for a good President IF we ever get one. If we put all the eggs in any one basket of effort, abortion interests like PP will know exactly where to attack. The more challenges PP faces at a time, the less successful they will tend to be. We need to all work in our areas of excellence at all levels against abortion and the abortion industry. We don’t need to waste our efforts fighting one another and thus helping Planned Parenthood.
Great points made by “Randy Crawford” in #39 & #60!
Thank you Randy Crawford!
If a Personhood Amendment can’t be ratified, it means the electorate do not yet truly want to criminalize the killing of the pre-born. People want what they want, all the rest is just hot air. You people have been talking since 1973, and you *still* haven’t figured anything out, as measured by any practical result. 37 years, and counting.
When childkilling becomes more uncomfortable to the average voter than a society of sexual restraint would be, then people will vote to recognize the personhood of the preborn child; not until then. Right now, as things currently stand, most voters are not uncomfortable enough with the current childkilling status quo to vote to change it. It may be that there is no way to make them uncomfortable enough, either — I honestly don’t know — but until they are, you are just talk-talk-talking pointlessly.
.
William DeGaul makes some excellent points. It is correct to assert that microanalyzing election results and playing numbers-juggling games can be extremely deceptive. There are so many variables, and interactions among variables, plus the environments change over time– so that a few percentage points up or down here or there from one election to another will just as likely have nothing to do with the dynamics of the next election. Relying on simplistic numerical analyses re the past is like the adage about generals frequently trying to fight the current war according to tactics developed in the last war. While the enemy is imaginatively developing new methods, over-reliance on history alone allows the other guy to change history-in-the-making going into the future. It is important to not focus on narrow interpretations, but rather be resilient, imaginative, and fight the enemy in many ways– particularly by developing new approaches for which they are unprepared. History is very important, but it needs to be applied to the big picture and new tactics, not into circular inbred dead-end thinking that presumes to magically know what “can’t possibly succeed” without first putting effort into the enterprise. Nothing works like trying, and nothing succeeds like working at working. The harder you work, the luckier you get. Turning the same predictable crank over and over is the surest way to help one’s meddling adversaries set up their usual ambushes of Lies, Infiltration, Espionage, and Sabotage with or without media involvement. Surprise and novelty tend to be much better weapons for catching the enemy off-balance.
I have witnessed operations and style and paperwork processes to oppose abortion-murder in many states. Colorado Right to Life, and Coloradans in general, have some of the best people, principles, commmitment, and hard work that there is to be found anywhere in America to stop the abortion mills. They have built up a network of hard-working people over the years, and that type of grassroots networking is the main platform that needs to be built across America so that an effective campaign can be launched for Personhood or anything else that will wake people up. If Obama can take murderous garbage and make it fly with community organizing, the least that decent angelic altruistic people can do is to match the devil’s advocates with better community organizing for establishing civilized standards.
Biologically, the human brain contains lower regions programmed for animal-instinct selfish activities. The higher brain regions, i.e. frontal lobes behind our foreheads (the part missing in chimps and monkeys, to give them the back-slanted foreheads) are what make humans humans, and give us intelligence and a sense of altruism that is found only rarely in lower species. Corresponding to ancient religious terminology, understood centuries ago before science made the concept anatomically specific, the angels of our natures reside in the frontal lobes, and the devils of our natures reside in the more primitive brain regions we share with apes and other wild animals.
It used to be in earlier decades that with religious education and a better schooling system overall, the abilities of the frontal lobes were cultivated and educated so as to override the simple vicious animal instincts toward murder, theft, adultery, abortion, homosexuality, lying, and other selfish tendencies. The past few decades, with education being sabotaged by active conniving and passive neglect, the poorly-trained angelic frontal lobes in too many millions of citizens aren’t being prepared to overcome the baser devilish animal instincts that too many people are born with.
Thus, too many people are degenerating into a habit of being shortsighted, selfish, and stupid– as directed by their unrestrained animal instincts. They demand easy lives and instant gratification, and a political structure to provide endless handouts, drugs, and birth control pills to keep the easy life going forever. Crooked politicians and church leaders have been only too happy to oblige, buying votes and collection plate offerings by promising the immature voters and parishioners whatever they want, with no regard for tomorrow’s consequences as to debt and immorality.
It is starting to become increasingly obvious that piling up debt and dead baby bodies has severe consequences. Meanwhile many millions are in denial, and trying to point fingers elsewhere. Until citizens are educated as to how to be more human and less like savage animals, i.e. how to use the frontal lobes to override primitive instincts in the lower brain, the problems will continue to degenerate further. Ertelt’s newsletter and similar newsletters help preach to the choir, because 95% plus of the readership is already against abortion. So such newsletters are useful at keeping us informed in-house, but they aren’t moving the ball down the playing field. To score more goals, we must develop new tactics that awaken and educate a larger and larger segment of society. Personhood efforts, and gory abortion street signs, and letters to the editor, and talking to your neighbors, and teaching young kids in grade school, and lobbying with clergy to be bold, are all methods of religious and secular proselytizing that can elevate brains-in-training above their devilish urges, so as to be more in line with our angelic potentials. But it will work only if the educational information is transmitted to the frontal lobes of millions of Americans who are currently out of touch and languishing in a 21st-Century Dark Age. Newsletters strengthen the converted, and efforts like Personhood recruit more converts, so both are beneficial for saving more babies.
As soon as a baby is conceived and growing in a woman’s womb it is most definately a person!! I don’t know how that fact can even be disputed!! Anyone who denies a living baby the rights of all people as citizens in this country is an ignorant and very evil person!! I hope that someday soon, the legalized murder of innocent babies will be repealed!! Our children are our future and it no person’s right to play God and decide who gets to live and who should die!! Every life that God creates has a purpose!!
I think that Ed Hanks has done the best job of conveying the truths about this debate.
I firmly believe in the personhood efforts and disagree strongly with the incrementalism arguments because I believe that they do undermine our premise that the preborn child is worthy of the same protection afforded to every other person.
I’ve been involved in prolife activism for over 26 years and I still believe that the main problem is a lack of repentance beginning with the church leadership and flowing down through the professing believers.
This was abundantly evident in Colorado as very few pastors & churches got involved with promoting the ammendment. We were kicked out of both large & small church parking lots for distributing personhood lititure and most pastors would not give us the time of day. They have givin in to the appeals of the masses Isa. 30:10,11. They heal the wounds of the people superficially as in Jer. ch. 6 & 8. Christians that really believe that we have an obligation to intervene on behalf of our preborn nieghbor, and encourage others in this are made to feel less comfortable in these churches than the men & women who go there on Sunday after aborting thier own child on Saturday.
I think both proposed solutions (Personhood amendment and electing pro life politicians ) are premature. With only 30% pro-life voters the amendment cannot be passed and no politician can impose a law with so few sustaining. I think the best thing to do now is to educate the people because there are still many people who believe the pro abortion lies (that the unborn baby is only a blob of tissue or a part of the mother’s body). They need to be educated to understand that the unborn baby is a NEW PERSON since the CONCEPTION. It is useful to start with pastors and teachers who can pass it on. Only when the people is educated regarding to this issue and we have a better percentage of pro-life people would be realistic to do a political action.
How about the Attorney General of Virginia bringing a lawsuit to block IVF on the basis of the personhood of the embryos being “created” and culled (PGN)in petri dishes and put into frozen orphanages? Or how about the genetic tests that are now being done very early on pregnant women’s blood to detect cystic fibrosis. Eight percent of those women abort if the tests show a strong possibility of their child carrying the disease. That’s eugenics! The court that just blocked Obamacare in Virginia might be friendly! Personhood can be fought for at many different levels. Lawyers, get creative! Go around Roe – talk about the humanity of children in petri dishes outside the womb! Find friendly lower courts and go for it!
CORRECTION: Eighty percent, not eight percent of children diagnosed with abnormalities in the womb are aborted. Eight percent of Down’s Syndrome etc.
In my rush to write before leaving for work, made a logical error. The genetic testing in the petri dish is the achilles heel. Not in the womb. Petri dishes aren’t covered under Roe. Wombs are.
I would like to add something to my comment.
Because educating the population is a long time thing someone might ask: What to do until we have the required majority to pass an amendment, let the children be killed?
I think that until then the most realistic solution is to save one life at a time how do some pregnancy centers (like Care Net) which offer counseling and alternative solutions for those headed to abortions. I also think that the drop in the number of abortions is due more to their work and less to political action.
Both camps in this debate are strongly in favor of
protecting the sanctity of all human life. We are, as Pope John
Paul II said, “doing the greatest work on earth”. John Paul II also
reassured us many times to “be not afraid”. To stand in opposition
to Personhood because of a fear that it may fail, may be good
strategy in a secular battle, however, this is a battle of immense
spiritual proportion. As such we are called by God to do all we can
to protect all human life from the moment of conception. It is only
Personhood and Personhood alone that will allow us to eventually,
with the help of God’s grace, to reach that goal.
It is a sad day in America when we can not agree that the
best time to end the merciless killing of innocent preborn babies
is immediately. The men leading this country possess not the
character of the men who found it. I truly wonder what their
debates, if held today, would consist of? We have several problems.
First, as a nation we had become comfortable back in the 50′s and
60′s. The economy had been positive and robust and climbing for
several years, resulting in a deeply seeded complacentcy. The
church (the people of the church) became complacent as well. this
is how we allowed solialist teachers and instructors to infiltrate
95% of our colleges and universities resulting in the reshaping and
reprogramming of the minds of our enrolled youth. In many cases,
stripping them of their religous upbringing and replacing it with
pure humanism. Secondly, we as church, have lost the moral
arguments in the election process by allowing moderates and
liberals dictate what is “politically correct and tollerant” by
sitting back comfortably and doing nothing. 1960′s Madelyn Murry
O’hair has God removed from our classrooms and public places. This
is where the line that separated right from wrong was erased. Where
was the church? This, in turn, paved the way for the socially
acceptable yet wicked laws that would follow through our courts
until the moral character of our great constitution has been
depleted. Next in the 1970′s came Roe vs. Wade, the repealing of
sodomy laws, gay marraiges. What is next? Where are we going to
stop the madness? I say we need good men to do everything God has
given them the strength to do and educate everyone on all the
scientific fact surrounding abortion. Then we will
prevail.
Abortion doesn’t need to be regulated, it needs to be banned. In California, pot dealers are trying to get regulated and taxed, to gain legitimacy. Regulation proffers undeserved legitimacy on abortionists. Murderers (other than abortionists) don’t get regulated, they get incarcerated. Parental consent laws (as well as other incrementalist laws) play into the hands of pro-aborts by saying that abortion is OK unless the mother is a minor whose parents aren’t notified. Regulation is approval of legalized abortion, with narrow exceptions.
The issue is personhood, not choice. Everyone knows some choices are wrong, and taking the life of an innocent person is wrong. If pre-born children are people, then they must not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Due process of law requires an individual to be tried in criminal court and convicted of a capital crime before being given the death penalty. No one recognized as a person gets the death penalty for being declared “unwanted” by another person. The issue is personhood.
[...] without compromising their position; whether we should be attempting to overturn Roe vs. Wade before we have a majority of pro-life justices on the Supreme Court; whether events like the March for Life and Red Envelope Day make as big a difference as we think, [...]
From Ohio Personhood, we see the recent Mississippi Personhood effort cost the coffers of Planned Parenthood blood-money barons plenty. As more and more states implement Personhood campaigns, the abortion mill profits shrink accordingly across America. It may be that by making their bottom line low enough, the unsatisfied greed of abortion doctors will drive them out of their slime pit at the bottom of the medical barrel and on to specialties where they earn more by NOT killing kids. With Personhood pressure already inducing Planned Parenthood to make visible cut backs, that’s more cuts to their staff and fewer cuts to the babies. Good. Here are the numbers for what PP recently had to spend in Mississippi:
—————————————————-
Personhood Adversary Unveiled
The Mississippi Secretary of State website includes the financial data of “Mississippians for Healthy families” which has been the chief opponent of the Mississippi Personhood Amendment.
The donations received up until October 31 include:
$209,000 from Planned Parenthood Action Fund – New York
$524,000 from Planned Parenthood Federation of America – New York
$34,000 from Planned Parenthood Southeast – Atlanta
$28,000 from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
$5000 from Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina
$5000 from Planned Parenthood of Hudson, New York
$50,000 from Planned Parenthood of San Jose, California
$10,000 from Planned Parenthood of Illinois – Chicago
$5000 from Planned Parenthood of Middle & Eastern Tennessee – Nashville
$10,000 from Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts – Boston
$ 3100 from Planned Parenthood Chapters in Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota
$21,000 from Planned Parenthood in Shasta, California
$17,000 from Planned Parenthood of St Louis
$7000 from Planned Parenthood of Seattle
$4300 from Planned Parenthood Chapters in Florida
$5000 from Planned Parenthood of Utah
$5000 from Planned Parenthood of San Diego, California
$86,000 from Planned Parenthood chapters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, North & South Dakota, Oregon, Washington State, and California
$20,000 from the American Civil Liberties Union – New York
$10,000 from the Mississippi ACLU
In addition, they received over 80 small contributions from individuals from out of state; however, only six from individuals in Mississippi.
It appears that Mississippians for Healthy Families IS Planned Parenthood.
I wonder who “Healthy Families Ohio”, an opponent of the Ohio Personhood Amendment, is?
[...] [...]