Employs Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can be further applied to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect state-level laws banning acts of sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, vis-a-vis public displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus.
(Suggestion: save this report as a resource for future reference to Federal and State bills cited below)
--------------------------------------
"The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Pledge Protection Act H.R. 2389 260 to 167. The act seeks to remove cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts."
Focus on the Family
citizenlink.org
July 19, 2006
House Votes to Protect the Pledge
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041325.cfm
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
Pledge Protection Act of 2005
H.R.2389
Title: To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sponsor: Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] (introduced 5/17/2005) Cosponsors (197)
Related Bills: H.RES.920, S.1046
Latest Major Action: 7/19/2006 Passed/agreed to in House.
Status: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 260 - 167 (Roll no. 385).
______________________________________
______________________________________
Pledge Protection Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 2389
AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts overcertain cases and controversies involving the Pledge of Allegiance.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Pledge Protection Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the endthe following:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
`(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation.
`(b) The limitation in subsection (a) does not apply to--
`(1) any court established by Congress under its power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States; or
`(2) the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals;'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 19, 2006.
---------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 2389 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
--------------------------------------
Note from Columbia Christians for Life: The language above, "no court created by Act of Congress" applies to the US Federal District Courts and the US Federal Courts of Appeals. Beginning with the 1789 Federal Judiciary Act, Congress has established the lower Federal Courts (federal courts below the US supreme Court). So Congress has the power to establish or remove the very existenceof specific lower Federal Courts, let alone, define their jurisdiction for adjudication. The authority of Congress to "ordain and establish" these lower Federal Courts in contained in Article III., Section 1.of the US Constitution.
________________________________
United States Constitution, Article III., Section 2., clause [2]
www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A3Sec2
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/
http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/
July 20, 2006
_________________________
USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/
July 20, 2006
House votes to block lawsuits over Pledge
page 4A
The House voted Wednesday to bar federal judges from ruling in lawsuits that claim that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The vote was 260-167. Prospects for the legislation are uncertain in the Senate, where a similar bill hasn't been acted upon since being introduced a year ago. Even if the measure became federal law, state courts could still rule on the validity of the Pledge within a state.
Full coverage
House passes bill shielding Pledge of Allegiance from federal court rulings
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/15078861.htm
House votes to protect Pledge of Allegiance
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/nation/15078798.htm
_________________________________
[highlighting emphasis added]
Focus on the Family
citizenlink.org
Helping you defend the family
www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0041325.cfm
July 19, 2006
House Votes to Protect the Pledge
by Wendy Cloyd, assistant editor
Representatives affirm the right of school kids to include "under God."
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Pledge Protection Act H.R. 2389 260 to 167. The act seeks to remove cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., is in response to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 2002 that declared the Pledge unconstitutional because of the words "under God." The Supreme Court overturned the decision, stating that atheist Michael Newdow did not have standing to bring the case.
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned 'under God' from the Pledge, it was out of step with the American public and the spirit of the Constitution.
"Nearly 90 percent of Americans believe 'under God' should remain in the Pledge and that students should be allowed to recite the Pledge," he said. "I am pleased to see Congress exercising its constitutional authority to check the power of the courts which have tried to strip 'God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The Pledge Protection Act, Perkins said, will help restore the system of checks and balances intended by our Founding Fathers.
"We continue to see attempts to remove any acknowledgement of God from the public square," he said. "If the Pledge falls under the attack of liberal activists and their judicial accomplices, we can expect our nation's motto and other historical inscriptions to fall as well."
Perkins noted that the threat from crusading atheists and activist judges will not cease until the Pledge Protection Act is signed into law.
"We urge the U.S. Senate to act promptly and adopt this measure before the August recess," he said. "Our overburdened courts will be more effective when they focus on areas of genuine dispute and cease tampering with first principles on which the American people are united."
[portion omitted]
(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.)
Copyright © 2006 Focus on the Family
All rights reserved.
International copyright secured.
(800) A-FAMILY (232-6459)
________________________________
________________________________
Other Important Applications of this Constitutional Power of Congress...
From Columbia Christians for Life director Steve Lefemine:
Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can also be applied to issues of marriage, sodomy, abortion, displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer:
Passage of the Pledge Protection Act on July 19, 2006, was not the first time in recent memory that the US House of Representatives has exercised it's power under Article III., Section 2., Clause [2] of the US Constitution to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
The US House passed HR 3313, the Marriage Protection Act, on July 22, 2004:
The Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, was passed by the US House of Representatives on July 22, 2004 (108th Congress), to remove appellate jurisdiction from the US supreme Court, and to remove all jurisdiction (original and appellate) from the lower Federal Courts (US District Courts, and the US Courts of Appeals) vis-a-vis the Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.).
JULY 22, 2005 - Yearlong anniversary of House MPA vote to remove jurisdiction from Supreme Court on DOMA
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW10.DOC
You may view the text, co-sponsors, and Congressional history of HR 3313 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
____________________________________
Marriage Protection Act of 2004 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 3313
AN ACT
To amend title 28, United States Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thefollowing:
`Sec. 1632. Limitation on jurisdiction
`No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, section 1738C or this section.'.
(b) Amendments to the Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 oftitle 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:`1632. Limitation on jurisdiction.'.
Passed the House of Representatives July 22, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note from Columbia Christians for Life:
The language above, "No court created by Act of Congress"applies to the US Federal District Courts and the US Federal Courts of Appeals. Beginning withthe 1789 Federal Judiciary Act, Congress has established the lower Federal Courts (federal courtsbelow the US supreme Court). So Congress has the power to establish or remove the very existenceof specific lower Federal Courts, let alone, define their jurisdiction for adjudication. The authority ofCongress to "ordain and establish" these lower Federal Courts in contained in Article III., Section 1.of the US Constitution.
________________________________________
In the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, discussed above, the US House passed legislation (unfortunately the US Senate did not even take the bill up) protecting the Defense of Marriage Act (D.O.M.A.) from the Federal Courts, in July 2004.
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court can be further applied to furtherprotect the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect state-level lawsbanning acts of sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, vis-a-vis public display of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ.
Categories of Legislative issues addressed below:
1. PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD
(Freedom of religious expression, public display of Ten Commandments, public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - S.520 (US Senate) and HR 1070 (US House)
2. ABORTION
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
b. State-level abortion ban bills
3. SODOMY
State-level bills banning acts of sodomy
________________________________________
1. PUBLIC ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF GOD
(Freedom of religious expression, public display of Ten Commandments, public prayer in the Name of Jesus Christ)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 - S.520 (US Senate) and HR 1070 (US House)
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
S.520
Title: A bill to limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Sen Shelby, Richard C. [AL] (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (9)
Related Bills: H.R.1070
Latest Major Action: 3/3/2005 Referred to Senate committee.Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
_______________________________________
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 520
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.
TITLE I - - JURISDICTION
SEC. 101. APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:`
Sec. 1260. Matters not reviewable
`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1260. Matters not reviewable.'.
SEC. 102. LIMITATIONS ON JURISDICTION.
(a) Amendment to Title 28- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the following:
`Sec. 1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of a matter if the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review that matter by reason of section 1260 of this title.'.
(b) Table of Sections- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`1370. Matters that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to review.'.
------------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of S.520 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
_________________________
The US House companion bill to US Senate bill S.520, is H.R. 1070, and is likewise called the 'Constitution Restoration Act of 2005.
'Constitution Restoration Act of 2005
H.R.1070
Title: To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Sponsor: Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] (introduced 3/3/2005) Cosponsors (48)
Related Bills: S.520
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1070
A BILL
To limit the jurisdiction of Federal courts in certain cases and promote federalism.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Constitution Restoration Act of 2005'.
------------------------------------------------
You may see the full text, co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 1070 at http://thomas.loc.gov/
_______________________________
_______________________________
2. ABORTION
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
b. State-level abortion ban bills
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER THE "RIGHT TO LIFE ACT," HR 552, IN THE US HOUSE (which now has 98 co-sponsors), THIS BILL COULD BE PASSED BY A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE IN THE US HOUSE AND THE US SENATE, AND BE PROTECTED FROM BEING OVERTURNED BY THE US SUPREME COURT. THUS THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT WOULD BAN ALL ABORTIONS IN AMERICA.
a. The Right to Life Act - HR 552 (US House)
H.R.552
Title: To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Sponsor: Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52] (introduced 2/2/2005) Cosponsors (97)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.
________________________________________
Right to Life Act (Introduced in House)
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 552
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Right to Life Act'.
SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person,and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You may see the full text and co-sponsors and Congressional history of HR 552 at http://thomas.loc/
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT BUSH and CONGRESS COULD END ABORTION IN AMERICA IN ONE WEEK
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW08.DOC
_____________________________________
b. State-level abortion ban bills
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER STATE-LEVEL BILLS BANNING ABORTION, PRINCIPLED, STATE-LEVEL BILLS BANNING ALL ABORTIONS COULD BE PASSED BY SIMPLE MAJORITIES IN THE VARIOUS STATE LEGISLATURES; AND / OR STATE-LEVEL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BANNING ALL ABORTIONS PASSED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS OF EACH STATE, AND THESE STATE-LEVEL LAWS AND AMENDMENTS WOULD BE PROTECTED FROM BEING OVERTURNED BY THE US SUPREME COURT. THUS STATE-LEVEL ABORTION BAN BILLS AND / OR STATE-LEVEL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS WOULD BAN ABORTIONS IN THAT STATE.
The Sixth Commandment states, "Thou shalt not kill (murder)." Exodus 20:13 (KJV)
There are no "exceptions" to God's commandment to mankind not to commit murder. The Texas state law banning most abortions that was challenged in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case had an exceptionfor the life of the mother. This exception undermined the attempt made by the State of Texas todefend its law, asserting the legal "personhood" of the unborn child.
In the very text of the Roe v. Wade US supreme Court decision it states, “[Texas] argue[s] that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
In other words, there never would have been legalized abortion under Roe v. Wade had fetal legal personhood been established by the State of Texas. But tragically, Texas had an “exception” which undermined their entire “personhood” argument. [Pro-abortion] Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: “[ Footnote 54 ] When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists… But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? ...”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
In the 2005-2006 Legislative year, numerous state-level bills have been filedbanning all or most abortions. To date, only the South Dakota bill has passed and been signed into law, and it has a life of the mother exception.
11 State bills in 2005/2006 banning abortions:
- ALA, GA, IND, KY, LA, MO, ND, OH, SC, SD, TENN (over 20% of States in U.S.)
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-121.doc
___________________________________
3. SODOMY
State-level bills banning acts of sodomy
THIS SAME STRATEGY CAN BE EMPLOYED BOTH TO PROTECT THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE FROM SODOMITES.
BY THE US CONGRESS REMOVING APPELLATE JURISDICTION FROM THE US SUPREME COURT OVER THE ANTI-SODOMY OF LAWS OF STATES, ACTS OF SODOMY CAN REMAIN THE ABOMINABLE CRIMINAL ACTS THAT THEY ARE, SUCH AS IN THE SOUTH CAROLINA S.C. CODE OF LAWS.
IF ACTS OF SODOMY REMAIN CRIMINAL ACTS, THEN SODOMITE "COUPLING" IS A MOOT ISSUE.
The moral Law of God states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (KJV)
Example from the South Carolina Code of Laws:
http://www.scstatehouse.net/
(note: "buggery" is the same as sodomy)
Title 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES
Chapter 15. OFFENSES AGAINST MORALITY AND DECENCY
SECTION 16-15-120. Buggery. [SC ST SEC 16-15-120]
Whoever shall commit the abominable crime of buggery, whether with mankind or with beast, shall, on conviction, be guilty of felony and shall be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for five years or shall pay a fine of not less than five hundred dollars, or both, at the discretion of the court.
_______________________________________
For further information, contact:
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
Ph. (803) 765-0916
E-mail - CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/
http://www.righttolifeactofsc.net/
___________________________________
Please help Columbia Christians for Life to be able to continue to inform, educate, and publicize to Christians, pro-lifers, legislators, the media, and others, about the various Federal and State-level legal strategies that are available, possible, and achievable for banning decriminalized abortionand sodomy in America, by posting and publicizing these reports.
Thank you.
To donate to Columbia Christians for Life:
Two methods -
1. Go to http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/ and click on 'Support' for CCL ministry support information.
2. Or, if you are a PayPal member (http://www.paypal.com/), you may also send CCL ministry donations to: CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
July 20, 2006
July 11, 2006
Anti-abortion constitutional amendment petition falls short in Michigan
National Right to Life does it again - this time in Michigan...
Right to Life of Michigan did not support the petition drive to ban abortion in Michigan by a state constitutional amendment, and neither did the Michigan Catholic Conference.
This same scenario of [so-called] "Right to Life" organizations undermining strong, principled, no-exceptions abortion ban legislation has been played out in at least South Dakota, South Carolina, Ohio, and now Michigan as well !
Christian pro-lifers who support principled legislation to ban all abortions should stop giving their money, support, and involvement to National Right to Life, and to National Right to Life's state chapters (such as Right to Life of Michigan, and South Carolina Citizens for Life) - these arms of NRL have repeatedly, now in several states, not supported and/or worked against the efforts of those who are trying to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by working for the passage of legislation/constitutional amendments at the state-level to ban all abortions.
They Love 'Political Power' More Than Life
www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/019835.html
www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/OPINION02/603310318/1087/opinion
Building up and supporting National Right to Life is therefore self-defeating for those who want to see strong, principled, no-exceptions abortion ban legislation passed in their state !
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:..." Hosea 4:6a
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
July 11, 2006
In South Carolina, the "Right to Life Act" recognizing the legal "personhood" of all pre-birth human beings (and thus banning all abortions) was supported by Columbia Christians for Life, Voice of the Unborn, and the League of the South, but the bill was not publicly supported by South Carolina Citizens for Life (NRL), nor by the Palmetto Family Council (the Focus on the Family affiliate in S.C.), nor by the lobbyist for the South Carolina Southern Baptist Association.
REPUBLICANS IN S.C. SENATE PROLONG CHILD-KILLING:
SC's Republican-majority State Senate kills the SC baby-killing ban bill
Republicans hold up right to life bill
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/columnists/14644579.htm
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:13:36 -0400
To: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
From: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
Subject: Anti-abortion petition falls short in Michigan
SouthBendTribune.com
www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/News01/607110392
Article published Jul 11, 2006
Anti-abortion petition falls short in Michigan
Group wanted to get enough signatures to put issue on ballot.
TIM MARTIN
Associated Press Writer
LANSING -- A group that wants to make abortion illegal in Michigan did not collect enough signatures to qualify its issue for the November ballot.
Michigan Citizens for Life needed to turn in at least 317,757 signatures of valid state voters to elections officials by Monday. The group likely collected fewer than 300,000 signatures, organizers said.
The group wants to change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing from the moment of conception. If successful, the initiative could have sparked a legal challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Michigan Citizens for Life leader Cal Zastrow said the group's focus will now shift to the future. That could include gathering petition signatures again next year or getting the Legislature to sponsor the constitutional amendment.
If the measure were to be introduced in the Legislature, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to approve the proposal in order for it to go before voters."We're talking about that and working on that now," Zastrow said. "We're talking about our plans from here on out. I am encouraged."
The Michigan Citizens for Life campaign was hurt because Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference did not support it.
Right to Life of Michigan has said the state already has a law on the books that could be used to ban abortion if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would take a court action for the pre-existing Michigan law to take effect, the anti-abortion group has said in a legislative analysis.
Right to Life of Michigan President Barbara Listing reiterated Monday that the group's priorities for the 2006 election cycle include electing public officials who are opposed to abortion.
The opposition to the petition drive took Michigan Citizens for Life leaders somewhat by surprise."We'll be more prepared for the opposition," Zastrow said of future efforts by his group.
Other anti-abortion groups, including the American Life League, supported the Michigan Citizens for Life petition drive.
The American Civil Liberties Union had said it would file a lawsuit to block the Citizens for Life proposal if it makes the ballot and voters approve it.
The number of reported induced abortions in Michigan totaled 25,209 in 2005, the lowest level since detailed record-keeping began about 30 years ago, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health.
The abortion rate -- the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 to 44 -- was 11.9 last year. That equals the previous low rate recorded in 1999.
Right to Life of Michigan did not support the petition drive to ban abortion in Michigan by a state constitutional amendment, and neither did the Michigan Catholic Conference.
This same scenario of [so-called] "Right to Life" organizations undermining strong, principled, no-exceptions abortion ban legislation has been played out in at least South Dakota, South Carolina, Ohio, and now Michigan as well !
Christian pro-lifers who support principled legislation to ban all abortions should stop giving their money, support, and involvement to National Right to Life, and to National Right to Life's state chapters (such as Right to Life of Michigan, and South Carolina Citizens for Life) - these arms of NRL have repeatedly, now in several states, not supported and/or worked against the efforts of those who are trying to establish justice for pre-birth human beings by working for the passage of legislation/constitutional amendments at the state-level to ban all abortions.
They Love 'Political Power' More Than Life
www.covenantnews.com/newswire/archives/019835.html
www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060331/OPINION02/603310318/1087/opinion
Building up and supporting National Right to Life is therefore self-defeating for those who want to see strong, principled, no-exceptions abortion ban legislation passed in their state !
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:..." Hosea 4:6a
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
July 11, 2006
In South Carolina, the "Right to Life Act" recognizing the legal "personhood" of all pre-birth human beings (and thus banning all abortions) was supported by Columbia Christians for Life, Voice of the Unborn, and the League of the South, but the bill was not publicly supported by South Carolina Citizens for Life (NRL), nor by the Palmetto Family Council (the Focus on the Family affiliate in S.C.), nor by the lobbyist for the South Carolina Southern Baptist Association.
REPUBLICANS IN S.C. SENATE PROLONG CHILD-KILLING:
SC's Republican-majority State Senate kills the SC baby-killing ban bill
Republicans hold up right to life bill
www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/columnists/14644579.htm
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:13:36 -0400
To: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
From: Columbia Christians for Life CCL@ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
Subject: Anti-abortion petition falls short in Michigan
SouthBendTribune.com
www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060711/News01/607110392
Article published Jul 11, 2006
Anti-abortion petition falls short in Michigan
Group wanted to get enough signatures to put issue on ballot.
TIM MARTIN
Associated Press Writer
LANSING -- A group that wants to make abortion illegal in Michigan did not collect enough signatures to qualify its issue for the November ballot.
Michigan Citizens for Life needed to turn in at least 317,757 signatures of valid state voters to elections officials by Monday. The group likely collected fewer than 300,000 signatures, organizers said.
The group wants to change the state constitution to legally define a person as existing from the moment of conception. If successful, the initiative could have sparked a legal challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
Michigan Citizens for Life leader Cal Zastrow said the group's focus will now shift to the future. That could include gathering petition signatures again next year or getting the Legislature to sponsor the constitutional amendment.
If the measure were to be introduced in the Legislature, two-thirds of both the House and Senate would have to approve the proposal in order for it to go before voters."We're talking about that and working on that now," Zastrow said. "We're talking about our plans from here on out. I am encouraged."
The Michigan Citizens for Life campaign was hurt because Right to Life of Michigan and the Michigan Catholic Conference did not support it.
Right to Life of Michigan has said the state already has a law on the books that could be used to ban abortion if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade. It would take a court action for the pre-existing Michigan law to take effect, the anti-abortion group has said in a legislative analysis.
Right to Life of Michigan President Barbara Listing reiterated Monday that the group's priorities for the 2006 election cycle include electing public officials who are opposed to abortion.
The opposition to the petition drive took Michigan Citizens for Life leaders somewhat by surprise."We'll be more prepared for the opposition," Zastrow said of future efforts by his group.
Other anti-abortion groups, including the American Life League, supported the Michigan Citizens for Life petition drive.
The American Civil Liberties Union had said it would file a lawsuit to block the Citizens for Life proposal if it makes the ballot and voters approve it.
The number of reported induced abortions in Michigan totaled 25,209 in 2005, the lowest level since detailed record-keeping began about 30 years ago, according to the Michigan Department of Community Health.
The abortion rate -- the number of abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 to 44 -- was 11.9 last year. That equals the previous low rate recorded in 1999.
July 10, 2006
National Right To Life: The Judas Of The Preborn
By Dr. Patrick Johnston
The Covenant News ~ July 10, 2006
www.covenantnews.com/johnston060708.htm
[highlighting added]
We have heard much about the historic abortion ban that was passed by the South Dakota legislature and signed by the Governor on March 6, 2006. What you may not have heard about was how National Right to Life joined pro-abortion groups to kill the South Dakota abortion ban in 2004.
Pro-life representatives initially had the vote to pass the 2004 abortion ban, but Right to Life leader and Republican South Dakota Senator Jay Duenwald strongly lobbied in opposition to it and ultimately turned the tide and caused it to fail by one vote. National Right to Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed the bill because they claimed it was not the right time. The media quoted Right to Life leaders as an authority that the abortion ban was untimely. Right to Life did support an amendment to the bill that removed the bill's criminal language, but Representative Matt McCaulley, the chief sponsor of the abortion ban, would not compromise on re-criminalizing abortion - not with NOW, not with NARAL, not with Planned Parenthood, and not with Right to Life.
Representative McCaulley observed, "There is something horribly wrong when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue."
What an unbelievable outrage! The largest pro-life group in America joining with pro-abortion groups to help keep abortion legal!
In response to Right to Life's opposition to the South Dakota abortion ban, Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus and respected national pro-life leader, Charles E. Rice, referred to them as a "barnacle on the pro-life ship of state" and a "frequent embarrassment to the pro-life cause." He indicted National Right to Life as "an organization (that) has rarely met a compromise it did not like. In this case, the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives."
Leslee Unruh, a long-time member of Right to Life and Director of the South Dakota Alpha Health Center, an abortion counseling service, was outraged: "We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill. In effect, they aborted the right to life bill."
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, who drafted the South Dakota abortion ban, accused National Right to Life of betrayal: "It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban - it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro- life cause." (Thomas More Law Center's full criticism of Right to Life's fatal compromise.)
With pro-lifers like this, who needs pro-choicers? With the Judas Iscariot kissing the unborn's cheek with their pro-life rhetoric and stabbing them in the back with their actions, the butchers of God's children have found the perfect accomplice. Over 2,000 children were aborted from the time of the failed abortion ban of2004 to the abortion ban of 2006, and Right to Life is responsible.
On June 13, 2006, Right to Life kissed the cheek of the pre-born in Ohio. Their rhetoric that the unborn should be protected and that abortion should be outlawed infuriated the pro-choicers just as it thrilled the pro-lifers that packed the Health Committee hearing room at the Ohio statehouse. But the speech was concluded by an expression of Right to Life's reluctance to endorse the Ohio abortion ban, House Bill 228, a reluctance exploited by questions from the Committee Chairman, John R. White, who appears all too happy to adopt Right to Life's excuses as reasons to shelve the Ohio abortion ban and not let it out of committee.
Why did Right to Life help keep abortion legal in Ohio? Let's examine their reasons. Right to Life's reason for not supporting the bill was concern that the Supreme Court would not uphold it. They expressed concern that the Supreme Court would reject the language of House Bill 228 that re-criminalized all abortion, and yet accept the deletion of portions of Ohio's code that regulates abortion, legislation for which Right to Life has worked hard over the past decade (if abortion was banned, informed consent legislation, right-to-know legislation, mandatory waiting periods, and partial birth abortion bans would no longer be necessary.) Thus, Right to Life speculates that the Supreme Court might transform this pro-life bill into practically a pro-abortion bill, effectively wiping out all abortion regulation for which Right to Life has fought hard over the past decade.
Such speculation is completely groundless, as there is no historical precedent that the Court might interpret a law to be the opposite of the plain language of the legislation and the expressed intent of the authors of the legislation. The intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law - that's a standard judicial rule for interpreting and evaluating legislation. Activist judges have dreamed up rights like a right to privacy from the Constitution, but have they ever interpreted a piece of legislation to be the opposite of the intent of its authors?
The Ohio Republicans who claimed to be "pro-life," who might have supported the bill if pro-life leaders united behind it, were emboldened with their criticism of the bill: "I'm pro-life, but I'm not Draconian either," said Republican state Representative Bob Gibbs. The bill "goes too far, too quick." In other words, I'm pro-life, but I don't want to stop the killing too quickly. How about when my term's expired?"
It was too stringent," Republican state Rep. John Hagan commented. "It was a pretty harsh approach to the issue." In other words, Stopping baby dismemberment by prosecuting the baby-butchers is just too stringent and harsh. Can we just pass a resolution that says we are pro-life?"
I don't feel in good conscience that (challenging Roe v. Wade) justifies passing an unconstitutional bill," Republican state Rep. Bill Seitz said. "It's tough, because absolutists don't necessarily understand that."In other words, My conscience won't let me stop the killing of innocent Ohioans if an activist judge finds the right to an abortion in the Constitution. It's so tough to follow your conscience with all those absolutists who believe "Thou shalt not murder" isn't negotiable…
"We have a Constitution. We have Federal law. We can't pass a bill that's unconstitutional and preserve life," Republican Rep. Jim Aslanides stated. In other words, We have to do whatever activist judges say, even if they say that we must allow innocent people to be killed in Ohio. I wonder, would Rep. Aslanides let the government legalize the killing of infants if an activist Federal judge found that in the Constitution, too?
One can only wonder how these pro-life state reps could possibly consider the Ohio abortion ban to be unconstitutional. You'd think the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which states that the government shall not deprive another of life or liberty without a trial by jury, and Article 1 Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, which says that all men have the inalienable right to life and liberty, would convince pro-lifers that abortion is unconstitutional and local and state bans of federally-justified murder are appropriate.
There is one common thread in all these excuses for not supporting Ohio's abortion ban: statism, or supreme allegiance to the state over God. Why does Ohio think that we are obligated to submit to the Supreme Court's opinion on abortion? Even renown pro-life leaders Janet Folger and Dr. John Willke, who testified in defense of House Bill 228 at the hearings, stated that the fate of House Bill 228 would ultimately rest with the Supreme Court and that it would be several years before Ohio's abortion ban would be enforceable. What? Are we going to pass an abortion ban and respect its suspension by a Federal judge? Are Ohio's leaders going to obey the Creator and re-criminalize abortion within their jurisdiction or are they going to obey activist judges? It is impossible for our state's leaders to be in good standing with Federal judges and with God-Almighty simultaneously if the judges order Ohio not to prosecute child-killers and God Almighty insists that we do.
Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota who signed their abortion ban this year declared that he would not enforce the abortion ban until the Supreme Court heard it, and implied that he would adhere to the Supreme Court's decision if they overruled it. I can only wonder if he would respect the Supreme Court if it decided that his children should be dismembered and executed, or would he do the right thing and protect the children within the bounds of his jurisdiction? To respect Roe v. Wade is to respect lawlessness and disrespect God's absolute standard of morality and justice, Governor Bounds.
Is the Supreme Court divine, my dear pro-life friends? Does the Supreme Court have the power to overrule the Court of Heaven? Who is Lord of heaven and earth - who is Lord over all of Ohio and South Dakota? Whose law reigns supreme? When man defies God's Word and calls evil good and good evil, with whom will we side?
This is the age-old question: Adam had to answer it before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the church of Germany had to answer it when Hitler commanded them to submit to Nazi doctrine, and men and women must answer it when the anti-christ commands them to worship a false image and take the mark of the beast. Who is Lord? To whom do we owe supreme allegiance? Man or God?
If Jesus Christ is Lord and the Bible is His revealed Word, then God's Word takes precedence over the opinions of rebels in black dresses. Over and over again, God's Word calls human beings in the womb "children." The God of the Bible mandates the same civil penalty for those who would kill the pre-born as for those who would kill the born (Exodus 21:22-24). Moreover, God commands civil authorities to do justice on behalf of all those within their jurisdiction (Romans 13:1-7). Deuteronomy 21:1-9 tells us that the community nearest to the murder is responsible for bringing the murderers to justice and the curse of innocent blood falls upon that community if it fails to do justice.
Ohioans have no business pointing our fingers at the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress for the shedding of innocent blood that Ohio allows. God's wrath abides on Ohio for the innocent blood that has been shed in our state, and God commands Ohio's civil authorities to purge our land from the guilt of innocent blood by the swift execution of murderers (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:30-34, and Romans 13:3-4). God's Word is not negated by the objections of any human opinion.
What then should we do? Let there be no ambiguity: God All-mighty commands, not suggests or recommends, but commands state and local civil authorities to bring all abortionists to justice and protect the innocent who are being slaughtered within their state. If you must defy that ol' Serpent, the Supreme Court, every voter in your district, and an invading Federal Army in order to obey God, then you must obey God! He will hold you personally accountable if you do not. He is angry with you if you do not. If you let the annual Holocaust of 34,000 innocent Ohioans continue in your jurisdiction, then woe be unto you!
Governor Mike Rounds has been heralded as a hero for signing the first state's abortion ban that directly challenges Roe v. Wade, but I will not be too hasty with my praise, for the last chapter of that book has not yet been written. If Governor Mike Rounds accepts a Supreme Court's overruling of his state's ban, and if he lets murderers continue to kill children in his jurisdiction without prosecuting and bringing them to justice, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes on Judgment Day for all the gold in the world! God commands local civil authorities to do justice within their jurisdiction, and Governor Rounds and the South Dakota legislature must either submit unto God's Word or they are in rebellion to the Judge of heaven and earth. There is no middle ground for civil authorities: either you do justice and please the Judge of all the earth, or you do injustice and infuriate Him.
A death sentence was passed against the Third Reich Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick. What was his crime? He knew of the atrocities committed in the Nazi death camps but did not do what was in his power to stop them.
Take heed, compromisers. Take heed, pro-life statists in our statehouses. Take heed, Right to Life - Judas Iscariots of the pro-life movement - your lovely rhetoric and your fair kisses are insufficient substitutes for obedience and for justice. The Judge of nations will avenge the innocent blood that Ohio has shed, if we do not. And it will not be pro-choicers and Democrats bearing the brunt of His wrath. It'll be Right to Life, pro-life Republicans, and Christian conservatives who don't think the timing's right for an abortion ban, or who respect the Supreme Court's disrespect of God's immutable laws and disregard of their neighbor's inalienable rights. Judgment must first begin at the House of God.
Published originally at NewsWithViews.com
Dr. Johnston practices family medicine in Zanesville, Ohio, and is Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Party of Ohio. His ministry is Right Remedy.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Amen, Dr. Patrick Johnston !
A similar betrayal of the unborn by National Right to Life has been experienced here in South Carolina as well. The South Carolina chapter of National Right to Life is called "South Carolina Citizens for Life" (SCCL). The SCCL executive director, Holly Gatling, has never publicly supported South Carolina's "personhood" bill for the unborn, called the "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" (see link to H.3213/S.111from the homepage of http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/), even though it has been an active bill in the SC House of Representatives every year, continuously, since 1998, when it was first introduced, and was also an active bill in the SC Senate in 1998, 2005, and 2006. By recognizing the legal "personhood" of the unborn at fertilization, all abortions would be banned, under the authority of Article I., Section 3. of the SC State Constitution (http://www.scstatehouse.net/). As was stated 33 years ago, right within the text of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision itself:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
July 10, 2006
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-1032.doc
The Covenant News ~ July 10, 2006
www.covenantnews.com/johnston060708.htm
[highlighting added]
We have heard much about the historic abortion ban that was passed by the South Dakota legislature and signed by the Governor on March 6, 2006. What you may not have heard about was how National Right to Life joined pro-abortion groups to kill the South Dakota abortion ban in 2004.
Pro-life representatives initially had the vote to pass the 2004 abortion ban, but Right to Life leader and Republican South Dakota Senator Jay Duenwald strongly lobbied in opposition to it and ultimately turned the tide and caused it to fail by one vote. National Right to Life spokespersons and officers of their state affiliate opposed the bill because they claimed it was not the right time. The media quoted Right to Life leaders as an authority that the abortion ban was untimely. Right to Life did support an amendment to the bill that removed the bill's criminal language, but Representative Matt McCaulley, the chief sponsor of the abortion ban, would not compromise on re-criminalizing abortion - not with NOW, not with NARAL, not with Planned Parenthood, and not with Right to Life.
Representative McCaulley observed, "There is something horribly wrong when South Dakota Right to Life and Planned Parenthood are on the same side of an issue."
What an unbelievable outrage! The largest pro-life group in America joining with pro-abortion groups to help keep abortion legal!
In response to Right to Life's opposition to the South Dakota abortion ban, Notre Dame Law Professor Emeritus and respected national pro-life leader, Charles E. Rice, referred to them as a "barnacle on the pro-life ship of state" and a "frequent embarrassment to the pro-life cause." He indicted National Right to Life as "an organization (that) has rarely met a compromise it did not like. In this case, the South Dakota affiliate of NRLC actively derailed the useful and sound, no compromise bill as passed by the House of Representatives."
Leslee Unruh, a long-time member of Right to Life and Director of the South Dakota Alpha Health Center, an abortion counseling service, was outraged: "We were shocked, saddened and dismayed that National Right to Life lobbied against this bill. In effect, they aborted the right to life bill."
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, who drafted the South Dakota abortion ban, accused National Right to Life of betrayal: "It is one thing for National Right to Life to disagree with the timing of a bill banning abortions, it is another thing for them to join forces with pro-abortionists to kill the ban - it is a betrayal of the unborn and pro-life movement. When is it the wrong time to do what is right? This organization has lost the moral authority to lead the pro- life cause." (Thomas More Law Center's full criticism of Right to Life's fatal compromise.)
With pro-lifers like this, who needs pro-choicers? With the Judas Iscariot kissing the unborn's cheek with their pro-life rhetoric and stabbing them in the back with their actions, the butchers of God's children have found the perfect accomplice. Over 2,000 children were aborted from the time of the failed abortion ban of2004 to the abortion ban of 2006, and Right to Life is responsible.
On June 13, 2006, Right to Life kissed the cheek of the pre-born in Ohio. Their rhetoric that the unborn should be protected and that abortion should be outlawed infuriated the pro-choicers just as it thrilled the pro-lifers that packed the Health Committee hearing room at the Ohio statehouse. But the speech was concluded by an expression of Right to Life's reluctance to endorse the Ohio abortion ban, House Bill 228, a reluctance exploited by questions from the Committee Chairman, John R. White, who appears all too happy to adopt Right to Life's excuses as reasons to shelve the Ohio abortion ban and not let it out of committee.
Why did Right to Life help keep abortion legal in Ohio? Let's examine their reasons. Right to Life's reason for not supporting the bill was concern that the Supreme Court would not uphold it. They expressed concern that the Supreme Court would reject the language of House Bill 228 that re-criminalized all abortion, and yet accept the deletion of portions of Ohio's code that regulates abortion, legislation for which Right to Life has worked hard over the past decade (if abortion was banned, informed consent legislation, right-to-know legislation, mandatory waiting periods, and partial birth abortion bans would no longer be necessary.) Thus, Right to Life speculates that the Supreme Court might transform this pro-life bill into practically a pro-abortion bill, effectively wiping out all abortion regulation for which Right to Life has fought hard over the past decade.
Such speculation is completely groundless, as there is no historical precedent that the Court might interpret a law to be the opposite of the plain language of the legislation and the expressed intent of the authors of the legislation. The intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law - that's a standard judicial rule for interpreting and evaluating legislation. Activist judges have dreamed up rights like a right to privacy from the Constitution, but have they ever interpreted a piece of legislation to be the opposite of the intent of its authors?
The Ohio Republicans who claimed to be "pro-life," who might have supported the bill if pro-life leaders united behind it, were emboldened with their criticism of the bill: "I'm pro-life, but I'm not Draconian either," said Republican state Representative Bob Gibbs. The bill "goes too far, too quick." In other words, I'm pro-life, but I don't want to stop the killing too quickly. How about when my term's expired?"
It was too stringent," Republican state Rep. John Hagan commented. "It was a pretty harsh approach to the issue." In other words, Stopping baby dismemberment by prosecuting the baby-butchers is just too stringent and harsh. Can we just pass a resolution that says we are pro-life?"
I don't feel in good conscience that (challenging Roe v. Wade) justifies passing an unconstitutional bill," Republican state Rep. Bill Seitz said. "It's tough, because absolutists don't necessarily understand that."In other words, My conscience won't let me stop the killing of innocent Ohioans if an activist judge finds the right to an abortion in the Constitution. It's so tough to follow your conscience with all those absolutists who believe "Thou shalt not murder" isn't negotiable…
"We have a Constitution. We have Federal law. We can't pass a bill that's unconstitutional and preserve life," Republican Rep. Jim Aslanides stated. In other words, We have to do whatever activist judges say, even if they say that we must allow innocent people to be killed in Ohio. I wonder, would Rep. Aslanides let the government legalize the killing of infants if an activist Federal judge found that in the Constitution, too?
One can only wonder how these pro-life state reps could possibly consider the Ohio abortion ban to be unconstitutional. You'd think the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which states that the government shall not deprive another of life or liberty without a trial by jury, and Article 1 Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, which says that all men have the inalienable right to life and liberty, would convince pro-lifers that abortion is unconstitutional and local and state bans of federally-justified murder are appropriate.
There is one common thread in all these excuses for not supporting Ohio's abortion ban: statism, or supreme allegiance to the state over God. Why does Ohio think that we are obligated to submit to the Supreme Court's opinion on abortion? Even renown pro-life leaders Janet Folger and Dr. John Willke, who testified in defense of House Bill 228 at the hearings, stated that the fate of House Bill 228 would ultimately rest with the Supreme Court and that it would be several years before Ohio's abortion ban would be enforceable. What? Are we going to pass an abortion ban and respect its suspension by a Federal judge? Are Ohio's leaders going to obey the Creator and re-criminalize abortion within their jurisdiction or are they going to obey activist judges? It is impossible for our state's leaders to be in good standing with Federal judges and with God-Almighty simultaneously if the judges order Ohio not to prosecute child-killers and God Almighty insists that we do.
Governor Mike Rounds of South Dakota who signed their abortion ban this year declared that he would not enforce the abortion ban until the Supreme Court heard it, and implied that he would adhere to the Supreme Court's decision if they overruled it. I can only wonder if he would respect the Supreme Court if it decided that his children should be dismembered and executed, or would he do the right thing and protect the children within the bounds of his jurisdiction? To respect Roe v. Wade is to respect lawlessness and disrespect God's absolute standard of morality and justice, Governor Bounds.
Is the Supreme Court divine, my dear pro-life friends? Does the Supreme Court have the power to overrule the Court of Heaven? Who is Lord of heaven and earth - who is Lord over all of Ohio and South Dakota? Whose law reigns supreme? When man defies God's Word and calls evil good and good evil, with whom will we side?
This is the age-old question: Adam had to answer it before the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the church of Germany had to answer it when Hitler commanded them to submit to Nazi doctrine, and men and women must answer it when the anti-christ commands them to worship a false image and take the mark of the beast. Who is Lord? To whom do we owe supreme allegiance? Man or God?
If Jesus Christ is Lord and the Bible is His revealed Word, then God's Word takes precedence over the opinions of rebels in black dresses. Over and over again, God's Word calls human beings in the womb "children." The God of the Bible mandates the same civil penalty for those who would kill the pre-born as for those who would kill the born (Exodus 21:22-24). Moreover, God commands civil authorities to do justice on behalf of all those within their jurisdiction (Romans 13:1-7). Deuteronomy 21:1-9 tells us that the community nearest to the murder is responsible for bringing the murderers to justice and the curse of innocent blood falls upon that community if it fails to do justice.
Ohioans have no business pointing our fingers at the Supreme Court or the U.S. Congress for the shedding of innocent blood that Ohio allows. God's wrath abides on Ohio for the innocent blood that has been shed in our state, and God commands Ohio's civil authorities to purge our land from the guilt of innocent blood by the swift execution of murderers (Genesis 9:6, Numbers 35:30-34, and Romans 13:3-4). God's Word is not negated by the objections of any human opinion.
What then should we do? Let there be no ambiguity: God All-mighty commands, not suggests or recommends, but commands state and local civil authorities to bring all abortionists to justice and protect the innocent who are being slaughtered within their state. If you must defy that ol' Serpent, the Supreme Court, every voter in your district, and an invading Federal Army in order to obey God, then you must obey God! He will hold you personally accountable if you do not. He is angry with you if you do not. If you let the annual Holocaust of 34,000 innocent Ohioans continue in your jurisdiction, then woe be unto you!
Governor Mike Rounds has been heralded as a hero for signing the first state's abortion ban that directly challenges Roe v. Wade, but I will not be too hasty with my praise, for the last chapter of that book has not yet been written. If Governor Mike Rounds accepts a Supreme Court's overruling of his state's ban, and if he lets murderers continue to kill children in his jurisdiction without prosecuting and bringing them to justice, I wouldn't want to be in his shoes on Judgment Day for all the gold in the world! God commands local civil authorities to do justice within their jurisdiction, and Governor Rounds and the South Dakota legislature must either submit unto God's Word or they are in rebellion to the Judge of heaven and earth. There is no middle ground for civil authorities: either you do justice and please the Judge of all the earth, or you do injustice and infuriate Him.
A death sentence was passed against the Third Reich Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick. What was his crime? He knew of the atrocities committed in the Nazi death camps but did not do what was in his power to stop them.
Take heed, compromisers. Take heed, pro-life statists in our statehouses. Take heed, Right to Life - Judas Iscariots of the pro-life movement - your lovely rhetoric and your fair kisses are insufficient substitutes for obedience and for justice. The Judge of nations will avenge the innocent blood that Ohio has shed, if we do not. And it will not be pro-choicers and Democrats bearing the brunt of His wrath. It'll be Right to Life, pro-life Republicans, and Christian conservatives who don't think the timing's right for an abortion ban, or who respect the Supreme Court's disrespect of God's immutable laws and disregard of their neighbor's inalienable rights. Judgment must first begin at the House of God.
Published originally at NewsWithViews.com
Dr. Johnston practices family medicine in Zanesville, Ohio, and is Vice Chairman of the Constitutional Party of Ohio. His ministry is Right Remedy.
_____________________________________
_____________________________________
Amen, Dr. Patrick Johnston !
A similar betrayal of the unborn by National Right to Life has been experienced here in South Carolina as well. The South Carolina chapter of National Right to Life is called "South Carolina Citizens for Life" (SCCL). The SCCL executive director, Holly Gatling, has never publicly supported South Carolina's "personhood" bill for the unborn, called the "Right to Life Act of South Carolina" (see link to H.3213/S.111from the homepage of http://www.christianlifeandliberty.net/), even though it has been an active bill in the SC House of Representatives every year, continuously, since 1998, when it was first introduced, and was also an active bill in the SC Senate in 1998, 2005, and 2006. By recognizing the legal "personhood" of the unborn at fertilization, all abortions would be banned, under the authority of Article I., Section 3. of the SC State Constitution (http://www.scstatehouse.net/). As was stated 33 years ago, right within the text of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision itself:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
July 10, 2006
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-1032.doc
Battle continues in South Dakota over state-level bill that bans most abortions
This South Dakota bill does not recognize the legal "personhood" of all pre-birth human beings because it allows for a life-of-the-mother "exception" to a ban on child-murder-by-abortion. It does aim to protect children conceived in the cases of rape and incest. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision said 33 years ago that "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the [pro-abortion] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-1032.doc
_______________________________________
The Philadelphia Inquirer
www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14998885.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation
Posted on Sun, Jul. 09, 2006
Unpredictable lines in S.D. abortion fight
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer
One in an occasional series
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - From the rocking chair on his back porch, Roger Hunt can see beyond the apple trees, vegetable garden and neighboring fields to the future.
"The appointment of [Samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts gives us four of nine justices," said Hunt, the legislator who sponsored South Dakota's new law that bans virtually all abortions. "Maybe [Anthony] Kennedy or another justice would vote with them. But even if not, Stevens is 86 years old.
"So there is a strong likelihood that President Bush will get an opportunity to appoint another judge to the Supreme Court. I think that within three years, we will have five pro-life judges. And it will take this legislation three years to get there."
That's the calculus of abortion politics here, as South Dakota prepares for a showdown on the nation's most restrictive abortion law: The time is ripe to topple Roe v. Wade, and this is the case to do it.
Now there's a wrinkle. Those opposed to the abortion ban have gathered enough signatures to block the new law until a referendum in November. For the first time in the 33 years since Roe, voters will decide whether to outlaw abortion.
So America's abortion war - with its religious and political and moral overtones - has moved to the prairie. The wholesome, unpretentious land of Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) and Norm van Brocklin (the Philadelphia Eagles) is girding for an ugly season of politicking over fetuses, rape and incest.
The fight has splintered this conservative state in unpredictable ways, turning Republicans against Republicans, Democrats against Democrats, wives against husbands. And South Dakotans, who pride themselves on their independence, have become proxies in a national battle.
Both sides predict victory in a close, emotional contest.
"This is a very significant strategic departure for us," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "This is not the strategy the reproductive-rights movement usually uses. We tend to file lawsuits.
"But we know we have to build a broader movement in the country if we're going to sustain our rights over time. Lawsuits win tactical skirmishes, but they don't build political movements."
The South Dakota law makes abortion illegal except to prevent the death of the mother. It makes felons of doctors who perform abortions. It provides no exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.
The sweeping nature of the law provides the desired direct legal challenge to Roe. But it also undercuts its popular support.
"It's too strong; there aren't enough exceptions," a middle-aged woman said outside the post office in Brookings. "If I were raped, I don't know if I'd want to have the baby."
"Oh, don't get me started," said Peggy Kolb, a hotel manager in Sioux Falls. "It just infuriates me. That decision shouldn't be left to the politicians."
A coworker, Deb Shorr, said, "I don't agree with abortion. But that goes too far."
Walter Bones, who farms the land his great-grandfather homesteaded outside Parker, said the lack of a rape-or-incest provision "is not a big enough issue" to erode his support for the law. "There is value in every life," he said.
"My wife is on the other side, though," Bones said. "We do a pretty good job of canceling each other out."
Nationwide surveys show an ambivalence about abortion that makes yes-or-no answers difficult for many Americans. And while South Dakota is clearly more opposed to abortion than the nation as a whole, the same types of divisions are apparent here.
Nationwide, 30 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 15 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances, and 53 percent say it should be legal under certain circumstances, according to the Gallup poll's latest survey on the issue in May. Asked if they would liketo see Roe overturned, 55 percent said no and 32 percent said yes.
Most Americans, by a margin of 58-34 percent, say they would oppose a national law like South Dakota's, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
In South Dakota, "if the vote were today, I think they would overturn the law," said David Kranz, longtime political writer for the Argus-Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls. "But the pro-life people are much more organized, by a long shot.
"There is only one clinic in the state that performs abortions, a low, brick Planned Parenthood office on the edge of Sioux Falls. About 800 abortions were performed in South Dakota last year, and the state's abortion rate (5 per 1,000 women aged 15-44) is among the nation's lowest (national average rate is 16). About 25 percent of the population is Roman Catholic; the church has been active in support of the ban.
The state's politics are shaped by its geography. West River, the half of the state west of the Missouri River, is home to the Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Deadwood, and a hardy streak of libertarian sentiment. The eastern half is more like its Midwestern neighbors, with rolling fields of corn, soybeans and alfalfa, and traditional Midwestern values.
Republicans dominate the state that was once best known for producing Democrats such as Sens. George McGovern and Tom Daschle. Republican Gov. Mike Rounds signed the abortion ban, and the GOP easily controls both houses of the Legislature.
But the sides in the abortion fight have not been drawn strictly along party or gender lines. Of the 34 legislators who voted against the abortion law, 17 were Republicans and 17 were Democrats. And of the 17 women in the Legislature, 12 voted for the law.
"It's not a partisan issue," said Rep. Kathy Miles, a Democrat who is a leading supporter of the new law. "My district is very Democratic and very pro-life. This has always been a pro-life state - it's something that people in South Dakota feel strongly about."
Miles said abortions in cases of rape or incest make a woman a victim twice. "Is it the child's fault how they were conceived? Two wrongs don't make a right."
Rep. Casey Murschel, a Republican actively opposed to the law and instrumental in gathering signatures to force a referendum on the issue, said, "When it gets down to it, this is more government than South Dakotans want," she said. "... Most South Dakotans have an independent streak, and they don't need everyone sticking their nose in their business."
When the two parties held their conventions last month, Republicans urged GOP voters to support the law and soundly defeated an amendment to acknowledge that some "people of good conscience" have qualms about the lack of a rape-and-incest provision. Democrats are encouraging party members to vote their conscience on a matter of "personal conscience and personal faith."
The South Dakota Medical Association weighed in last month, too, saying it "strongly condemns interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of patients." The medical association said the "scientific basis for the bill's enactment is flawed" and "potentially criminalizes the provision of medical care and procedures that may be in the best interest of patients."
Leslee Unruh, a national leader in the abstinence-only sex-education movement, is taking a leave from her post in Sioux Falls to lead the campaign for the new abortion law. Unruh, who had an abortion in 1977 when she was 22, has turned her abstinence and abortion activism into political power. She displays a picture of her and President Bush, taken at the White House, and says she hopes to get Bush to South Dakota to campaign for the law.
At the same time, she is critical of the failure of national Republicans to support the South Dakota abortion ban.
"Republicans can find another way to win elections. And the national pro-life movement didn't do this, we did. When we overturn Roe, and we will, it will be because of these women here. The killing stops here."
Maria Bell, a gynecological oncologist at Sioux Valley Hospital who is actively opposing the law, has shifted her two children from Catholic school to public school because of taunts from other students. And she said her parents have revised their will to remove the Catholic diocese as a beneficiary; the money will go instead to Planned Parenthood.
"Three years ago, I had a case that would be felony under this law," she said, shaking her head. If the law stands, she said more women would have unsafe abortions or use dangerous medicines obtained on the Internet to try to end pregnancies.
"If you're a 16-year-old girl on the farm, where do you go?
"I truly believe this is about the subjugation of women, period," Bell said.
Both sides in South Dakota's abortion battle predict a nasty, noisy campaign, with lots of money and supporters from out of state.
"It will be heavily waged. It will be messy," said Elaine Roberts, a Democratic legislator and former teacher active in the effort to repeal the law. "But I really think that in the end, South Dakotans will look at this and say, 'It's not the best public policy.'
"But then, what next? This isn't the end."
On that, Miles, the Democratic representative campaigning for the law, agrees.
"I'm guessing this won't go away," she said. "Hopefully, this will go to the Supreme Court. That was the intent going into it."
Contact staff writer Paul Nussbaum at 215-854-4587 or pnussbaum@phillynews.com.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
Columbia, SC
www.ChristianLifeandLiberty.net
www.RighttoLifeActofSC.net
www.christianlifeandliberty.net/H3213-S111-1032.doc
_______________________________________
The Philadelphia Inquirer
www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/14998885.htm?source=rss&channel=inquirer_nation
Posted on Sun, Jul. 09, 2006
Unpredictable lines in S.D. abortion fight
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer
One in an occasional series
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - From the rocking chair on his back porch, Roger Hunt can see beyond the apple trees, vegetable garden and neighboring fields to the future.
"The appointment of [Samuel] Alito and [John] Roberts gives us four of nine justices," said Hunt, the legislator who sponsored South Dakota's new law that bans virtually all abortions. "Maybe [Anthony] Kennedy or another justice would vote with them. But even if not, Stevens is 86 years old.
"So there is a strong likelihood that President Bush will get an opportunity to appoint another judge to the Supreme Court. I think that within three years, we will have five pro-life judges. And it will take this legislation three years to get there."
That's the calculus of abortion politics here, as South Dakota prepares for a showdown on the nation's most restrictive abortion law: The time is ripe to topple Roe v. Wade, and this is the case to do it.
Now there's a wrinkle. Those opposed to the abortion ban have gathered enough signatures to block the new law until a referendum in November. For the first time in the 33 years since Roe, voters will decide whether to outlaw abortion.
So America's abortion war - with its religious and political and moral overtones - has moved to the prairie. The wholesome, unpretentious land of Laura Ingalls Wilder (Little House on the Prairie) and Norm van Brocklin (the Philadelphia Eagles) is girding for an ugly season of politicking over fetuses, rape and incest.
The fight has splintered this conservative state in unpredictable ways, turning Republicans against Republicans, Democrats against Democrats, wives against husbands. And South Dakotans, who pride themselves on their independence, have become proxies in a national battle.
Both sides predict victory in a close, emotional contest.
"This is a very significant strategic departure for us," said Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. "This is not the strategy the reproductive-rights movement usually uses. We tend to file lawsuits.
"But we know we have to build a broader movement in the country if we're going to sustain our rights over time. Lawsuits win tactical skirmishes, but they don't build political movements."
The South Dakota law makes abortion illegal except to prevent the death of the mother. It makes felons of doctors who perform abortions. It provides no exception for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.
The sweeping nature of the law provides the desired direct legal challenge to Roe. But it also undercuts its popular support.
"It's too strong; there aren't enough exceptions," a middle-aged woman said outside the post office in Brookings. "If I were raped, I don't know if I'd want to have the baby."
"Oh, don't get me started," said Peggy Kolb, a hotel manager in Sioux Falls. "It just infuriates me. That decision shouldn't be left to the politicians."
A coworker, Deb Shorr, said, "I don't agree with abortion. But that goes too far."
Walter Bones, who farms the land his great-grandfather homesteaded outside Parker, said the lack of a rape-or-incest provision "is not a big enough issue" to erode his support for the law. "There is value in every life," he said.
"My wife is on the other side, though," Bones said. "We do a pretty good job of canceling each other out."
Nationwide surveys show an ambivalence about abortion that makes yes-or-no answers difficult for many Americans. And while South Dakota is clearly more opposed to abortion than the nation as a whole, the same types of divisions are apparent here.
Nationwide, 30 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, 15 percent say it should be illegal in all circumstances, and 53 percent say it should be legal under certain circumstances, according to the Gallup poll's latest survey on the issue in May. Asked if they would liketo see Roe overturned, 55 percent said no and 32 percent said yes.
Most Americans, by a margin of 58-34 percent, say they would oppose a national law like South Dakota's, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center.
In South Dakota, "if the vote were today, I think they would overturn the law," said David Kranz, longtime political writer for the Argus-Leader newspaper in Sioux Falls. "But the pro-life people are much more organized, by a long shot.
"There is only one clinic in the state that performs abortions, a low, brick Planned Parenthood office on the edge of Sioux Falls. About 800 abortions were performed in South Dakota last year, and the state's abortion rate (5 per 1,000 women aged 15-44) is among the nation's lowest (national average rate is 16). About 25 percent of the population is Roman Catholic; the church has been active in support of the ban.
The state's politics are shaped by its geography. West River, the half of the state west of the Missouri River, is home to the Badlands, Mount Rushmore, Deadwood, and a hardy streak of libertarian sentiment. The eastern half is more like its Midwestern neighbors, with rolling fields of corn, soybeans and alfalfa, and traditional Midwestern values.
Republicans dominate the state that was once best known for producing Democrats such as Sens. George McGovern and Tom Daschle. Republican Gov. Mike Rounds signed the abortion ban, and the GOP easily controls both houses of the Legislature.
But the sides in the abortion fight have not been drawn strictly along party or gender lines. Of the 34 legislators who voted against the abortion law, 17 were Republicans and 17 were Democrats. And of the 17 women in the Legislature, 12 voted for the law.
"It's not a partisan issue," said Rep. Kathy Miles, a Democrat who is a leading supporter of the new law. "My district is very Democratic and very pro-life. This has always been a pro-life state - it's something that people in South Dakota feel strongly about."
Miles said abortions in cases of rape or incest make a woman a victim twice. "Is it the child's fault how they were conceived? Two wrongs don't make a right."
Rep. Casey Murschel, a Republican actively opposed to the law and instrumental in gathering signatures to force a referendum on the issue, said, "When it gets down to it, this is more government than South Dakotans want," she said. "... Most South Dakotans have an independent streak, and they don't need everyone sticking their nose in their business."
When the two parties held their conventions last month, Republicans urged GOP voters to support the law and soundly defeated an amendment to acknowledge that some "people of good conscience" have qualms about the lack of a rape-and-incest provision. Democrats are encouraging party members to vote their conscience on a matter of "personal conscience and personal faith."
The South Dakota Medical Association weighed in last month, too, saying it "strongly condemns interference by the government or other third parties that causes a physician to compromise his or her medical judgment as to what information or treatment is in the best interest of patients." The medical association said the "scientific basis for the bill's enactment is flawed" and "potentially criminalizes the provision of medical care and procedures that may be in the best interest of patients."
Leslee Unruh, a national leader in the abstinence-only sex-education movement, is taking a leave from her post in Sioux Falls to lead the campaign for the new abortion law. Unruh, who had an abortion in 1977 when she was 22, has turned her abstinence and abortion activism into political power. She displays a picture of her and President Bush, taken at the White House, and says she hopes to get Bush to South Dakota to campaign for the law.
At the same time, she is critical of the failure of national Republicans to support the South Dakota abortion ban.
"Republicans can find another way to win elections. And the national pro-life movement didn't do this, we did. When we overturn Roe, and we will, it will be because of these women here. The killing stops here."
Maria Bell, a gynecological oncologist at Sioux Valley Hospital who is actively opposing the law, has shifted her two children from Catholic school to public school because of taunts from other students. And she said her parents have revised their will to remove the Catholic diocese as a beneficiary; the money will go instead to Planned Parenthood.
"Three years ago, I had a case that would be felony under this law," she said, shaking her head. If the law stands, she said more women would have unsafe abortions or use dangerous medicines obtained on the Internet to try to end pregnancies.
"If you're a 16-year-old girl on the farm, where do you go?
"I truly believe this is about the subjugation of women, period," Bell said.
Both sides in South Dakota's abortion battle predict a nasty, noisy campaign, with lots of money and supporters from out of state.
"It will be heavily waged. It will be messy," said Elaine Roberts, a Democratic legislator and former teacher active in the effort to repeal the law. "But I really think that in the end, South Dakotans will look at this and say, 'It's not the best public policy.'
"But then, what next? This isn't the end."
On that, Miles, the Democratic representative campaigning for the law, agrees.
"I'm guessing this won't go away," she said. "Hopefully, this will go to the Supreme Court. That was the intent going into it."
Contact staff writer Paul Nussbaum at 215-854-4587 or pnussbaum@phillynews.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
