September 22, 2009

Catholic CFR-members (two) on Americans United for Life (AUL) Directors/Advisory Boards;

AUL Sr. Legal Counsel attacked Columbia Christians for Life Personhood position

AUL Board of Directors - Catholic CFR-member George S. Weigel, Jr.,
Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC

AUL Board of Advisors - Catholic CFR-member Professor Robert P. George,
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ

Read and download the complete report here.

September 21, 2009

Romanist, Jesuit-advised, Americans United for "Life" [sic] senior legal counsel attacks CCL's "Personhood" position

Americans United for "Life" [sic] has been an opponent of State-level Personhood Legislation to END abortion.


Pro-Lifers Must be Realistic About How, When Roe Abortion Case Can be Reversed
by Clarke Forsythe

September 16, 2009 Note: Clarke Forsythe is the senior legal counsel at Americans United for Life, a pro-life legal group that has been involved in numerous Supreme Court and lower court cases concerning abortion law.
Quote: “Nevertheless, the urban legend has spread throughout the Web. The standard description is captured in the following excerpt from a website called "Christian Life and Liberty": “


The Blackmun Myth
Pro-lifers should be realistic about their short-term goals. =
By Clarke D. Forsythe
September 16, 2009 4:00 AM
Quote: “Nevertheless, the urban legend has spread throughout the Web. The standard description is captured
in the following excerpt from a website called “Christian Life and Liberty”: “

­ Clarke D. Forsythe is senior counsel at Americans United for Life.


Previous report by Columbia Christians for Life (CCL):

Romanist, Ecumenical "Pro-Life" Webcast includes CFR-member,
and several opponents of state-level Personhood bills:
Richard Land, Southern Baptist Convention;
Romanist / Ecumenical: Americans United for Life;
Roman Catholic priest, Frank Pavone, Priests For Life;
National Right to Life; Family Research Council; and others
July 23, 2009

1. Americans United for Life - includes JESUIT priest on AUL Advisory Board:

CCL Note: "S.J." stands for "Society of Jesus" [sic] or "Jesuit"

Reverend Kevin T. FitzGerald, S.J.
David Lauler Chair, Catholic Health Care Ethics, Center for Clinical Bioethics, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC

Americans United for Life Board of Advisors


CCL Note: Georgetown is a Jesuit University and power base in Washington, D.C. with immense influence in political, military, and foreign affairs. It is a Vatican / Jesuit General stronghold of Rome's New World Order.

Georgetown University
Georgetown University is a Jesuit private university located in Georgetown, Washington, D.C. Father John Carroll founded the school in 1789, though its roots extend back to 1634. ... Georgetown is the oldest Roman Catholic university in the United States, and its religious heritage is used to define the institution.

Georgetown University President: [ Council on Foreign Relations member ] John J. DeGioia

2006 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Membership Roster
(including current and/or past positions of some members)


Americans United for "Life" [sic] has been an opponent of State-level Personhood Legislation to END abortion for years.

Amending the Approach
A state Human Life Amendment isn’t the answer.
By Clarke D. Forsythe & Denise Burke
November 27, 2007 4:00 AM

­ Clarke D. Forsythe is the president of Americans United for Life in Chicago.
Denise Burke is the Vice President and Legal Director for AUL’s Legal and Policy Team.


Americans United for "LIfe" [sic], like National Right to "Life" [sic] , is part of the Romanist-led Establishment opposition to ending abortion, instead of just perpetually, incrementally regulating it. These are "pro-life" [sic] Vatican front groups which are not Biblically-based. Any individuals working in these organizations who do sincerely want to see abortion ended have been deceived by the Vatican / Papal / Jesuit General agenda of Rome to perpetuate abortion, not end it.

National Right to Life was first organized under the auspices of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1968 - five years before Roe v. Wade - before becoming "autonomous" and allegedly "non-sectarian" [sic] in 1973 - those involved with fighting for personhood for the unborn in many state-level efforts over the last several years know what an enemy of "Personhood" efforts that National Right to "Life" [sic] has been, and of the obstruction and opposition to State-level Personhood efforts by the Pope-appointed, Roman Catholic Bishops in Michigan, Georgia, Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota. (see report below on the pro-active public opposition of the North Dakota Catholic Bishops in 2009).

The goal of Rome is not to end abortion, but to perpetuate it. Rome / the Vatican has done a "good" job - abortion in America could have been ended in 1973 by Congress and the President passing personhood legislation that same year. After over 36 years and over 50+ Million dead from surgical abortion alone, abortion can still be ended, not just regulated, by establishing Personhood. There are even now three personhood bills in the U.S. Congress:

HR 881, S.346, and HR 2533 (also limits US Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction).
[ see bills at ]

God's requirement for Murder is JUSTICE, not Regulation !

Rome / the Jesuit General / the Vatican / the Pope are enemies of ending abortion. Abortion has been an ecumenical bonanza for Rome, getting born-again Christians to yoke with Roman Catholicsin fighting abortion, despite God's commandments against unequal yoking with unbelievers (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, KJB), resulting in the weakening of Bible-believing Christians and Churches, just as intended by the ongoing Council of Trent Counter-Reformation, not repudiated by the Second Vatican Council.

One of the planks of the New World Order is global population reduction, possibly by 90%, as revealed by the Georgia Guidestones ( / ). Abortion is one of the instruments of this satanic policy objective.

ROME is the New World Order.

Abortion is yet another Papal / Vatican / Rome / Jesuit General Inquisition of non-Catholics in the 20th / 21st centuries !!!

"... I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
Yeshua Messiah

Hallelu-Yah !

Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for Life
PO Box 50358, Columbia, SC 29250
(803) 794-6273, Home page, "News" page, "RTL Act of SC" page (South Carolina Personhood Bills to END Abortion; first introduced in SC House and SC Senate in 1998)
September 21, 2009 / Revised November 11, 2009 / Revised November 12, 2009 / Corrected November 17, 2009 /Updated June 7, 2010

2009/2010 Session - South Carolina Personhood Bills (House and Senate)

2009-2010 State-Level Personhood (and other selected) Legislation:
- Including State-Level Personhood Bills and Constitutional Amendments
May 25, 2009

September 11, 2009

Catholic Bishops in North Dakota opposed state personhood bill which passed North Dakota House; opposition of Roman Catholic leaders helped defeat historic personhood bill in North Dakota Senate by 29-16 vote
- Judie Brown (ALL) article, April 3, 2009 - "NORTH DAKOTA BISHOPS NULLIFY PERSONHOOD!"
- Steve Lefemine (CCL) commentary, May 21, 2009 - The Vatican / Roman Catholic hierarchy is NOT pro-life !!!
(Including the Bishops, Cardinals, Pope, Vatican, Jesuit General)

437th Anniversary: August 24, 1572 - Roman Catholic / Jesuit / Papal
St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of French Protestants (Huguenot Calvinists)

Roman Catholic slaughter of 75,000 French Protestant Huguenots in Paris and France in 1572
August 24, 2009


Pro-Lifers Must be Realistic About How, When Roe Abortion Case Can be Reversed

by Clarke Forsythe
September 16, 2009 Note: Clarke Forsythe is the senior legal counsel at Americans United for Life, a pro-life legal group that has been involved in numerous Supreme Court and lower court cases concerning abortion law.

Last month, a federal court upheld South Dakota's law that women seeking abortion be informed "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

This is good news for people who believe women should have full information about abortion. But make no mistake: The South Dakota law will not, as some pro-lifers believe, pose a "challenge" to Roe v. Wade.

The law is consistent with the trend in criminal and tort law toward protecting the unborn as human beings. In recent decades, legal protection of the unborn as persons has developed state by state through fetal-homicide and wrongful-death laws.

Today, 36 states have fetal-homicide laws, 24 of which protect unborn children from the time of conception, and 38 states have wrongful-death laws, which protect unborn children at least after viability. (As a practical matter, however, the application of these laws has been limited by the U.S. Supreme Court to incidents other than abortion - e.g., vehicular homicide.)

Over the past few years, a very different legal definition of "personhood" has been proposed in various states. These "personhood" proposals have the specific aim of "challenging" Roe, yet they are heading toward a brick wall, because they are based on a clear misreading of Justice Blackmun's language in the 1973 decision.

The proposals sometimes attempt to define human life as beginning at conception (or fertilization). That's well and good, if properly drafted, and such laws are in force in many states. But the mistaken belief is that such a definition will repair an omission in Roe or present facts that the Court didn't know about. This is wrong for several reasons.

The myth has been widely reported that Justice Blackmun stated in Roe that "we don't know when life begins." Some state legislatures have come to believe that they can answer that question by asserting that life begins at conception. What Blackmun actually wrote (pp. 156-157 of the Roe opinion) was: "The [state of Texas] argue[s] 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, [Jane Roe's] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."

Nevertheless, the urban legend has spread throughout the Web. The standard description is captured in the following excerpt from a website called "Christian Life and Liberty":

According to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, personhood "collapses" the abortion "legal" [sic] argument:

The 1973 US Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision instructed that if "personhood" for the "fetus" was established at fertilization, with no exceptions, then the [so-called] "legal" [sic] argument for abortion "collapses" ["[so-called]" and "[sic]" in the original].

There are several fundamental problems here. First, this is a classic case of reading the language out of context. The phrase "suggestion of personhood" in Blackmun's opinion clearly refers to the earlier phrase "within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." It does not mean "personhood" in any broader medical, moral, or legal sense. Blackmun is emphasizing the meaning of "person" within the 14th Amendment.

Second, no state can - by statute or constitutional amendment - change the meaning of the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. The 14th Amendment can be changed only by another federal constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court's changing its interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Thus, the following extrapolation from Blackmun's language (on the same website) is clearly wrong:

Establishing in law (by statutory change to the state's code of laws, or by a state constitutional amendment) legal "personhood" for pre-birth human beings, at fertilization, with no exceptions, satisfies the requirement spelled out in the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, to "collapse" the [so-called] "legal" [sic] argument for abortion."

Third, the misguided argument then quotes footnote 54 of Blackmun's opinion, without realizing that Blackmun is being ironic:

"Exceptions" to legal "personhood" are unconstitutional, as explained in the text of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, and in a Justice Blackmun footnote therein [emphasis added]:

"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?...."

Blackmun is not seriously entertaining personhood; it's clear from the context (and from the rest of the Roe opinion) that he rejects it as nonsense. He is not saying that exceptions are "unconstitutional" and never uses such language. The urban legend has it exactly backwards: The Texas statute does not define the meaning of the 14th Amendment; the 14th Amendment defines the validity of the Texas statute.

If Blackmun had seriously entertained the notion that the 14th Amendment protected the unborn, the Texas statute would not have impeded him; the Court could have struck it down. Blackmun set up his sneering contradiction only after concluding that the 14th Amendment did not protect the unborn. He thought his manufactured scenario would lampoon Texas's case.

Thus, the following extrapolation on the website is also obviously wrong:

"Personhood" legislation, by statutorily vesting legal "personhood" at fertilization for ALL human beings, satisifies [sic] the Roe formula published over 36 years ago.

The key legal issue presented in the very text of Roe, necessary to unravel the entire Roe framework, is statutorily vesting legal "personhood" at fertilization for ALL human beings, with no exceptions. . . .

In other words, pass "personhood" legislation in your state, as a bill, or as a constitutional amendment, and according to the U.S. Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision itself, [so-called] "legal" [sic] abortion is over in that jurisdiction.

Basing state personhood amendments on extrapolations of Blackmun's language in Roe is futile. This does not mean that establishing some form of legal personhood in the states is not a worthy goal. It simply means that (because of our system of federalism) it will not - it cannot - establish 14th Amendment personhood or set up a test case to overturn Roe.

First, not one justice on the current Supreme Court supports the proposition that the unborn are protected as "persons" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Not one. All have rejected it, explicitly or implicitly.

Second, these proposals would be better designed if they followed the Missouri statutory preamble enacted in the 1980s:

1. The general assembly of [Missouri] finds that:

(1) The life of each human being begins at conception;
(2) Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being;
(3) The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.

2. Effective January 1, 1988, the laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this state.

3. As used in this section, the term "unborn children" or "unborn child" shall include all unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the Missouri preamble in the 1989 Webster case and found it constitutional, the preamble has been applied by Missouri courts to extend protections for unborn children in non-abortion situations.

Third, state legislation concerning fetal development will not supply facts that the justices are not already aware of. Justice Blackmun clearly thought he understood the "well-known facts of fetal development" in 1973. Moreover, the two partial-birth-abortion cases in 2000 and 2007 amply supplied facts about the humanity of the unborn and what abortion does to the unborn child. Even the most pro-abortion justices acknowledged this by noting that D&E (dilation and evacuation) abortions are no less brutal than D&X abortions. The Supreme Court's majority opinion in the 2007 Gonzales case used the words "kill" or "killing" at least 18 times to describe abortion. The problem is not that the justices do not understand, but that they do not care.

Fourth, legislation is needed that will protect the unborn, but there's no reason to believe such legislation will be an effective vehicle to challenge Roe, given the Court's current composition. And while public education about fetal development will always be important, the notion that such facts will have a significant impact on the current justices is based on a profound misunderstanding of why most of those justices support Roe.

The emphasis on the unborn child completely overlooks the fact that the Court's rationale for the abortion "right" shifted dramatically in the 1992 Casey decision, where it became a sociological rationale that women need abortion as a backup to failed contraception. Facts about fetal development have no bearing on this sociological rationale. The real challenge for pro-lifers in 2009 is to effectively address the assumption that abortion is good for women.

Finally, with the confirmation of pro-abortion Justice Sotomayor, and the likelihood that President Obama will have the opportunity to nominate more pro-abortion justices in the next three years, there is no chance that the Court will reconsider Roe as long as Obama is in office. Justice Scalia (who should know) plainly told a legal audience in Europe a few years ago that there was not a majority on the Court to overturn Roe. That's even more certain today.

There are other goals that are more important - and more achievable in the current environment - than an illusory test case to "challenge Roe" based on questions that the current justices simply aren't asking.


September 10, 2009


After months of preparation and hard work, we are pleased to announce that Florida will be launching their personhood amendment.


Personhood Florida Submits Personhood Amendment to Florida State Constitution

Contact: Brenda Macmenamin, 772-708-5239; Dr. Pat McEwen, 321-431-3962

MEDIA ADVISORY, Sept. 9 /Christian Newswire / -- God is the author of all human rights -- mine, yours -- every human being's from their very beginning. First among these, and upon which all others stand, is our right to be recognized as persons -- as children of God, made in His image and likeness.

Our Floridian Founding Fathers laid upon our shoulders the right, better yet the responsibility, to defend life -- of every human being.

"We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its blessings and to form a more perfect government, insuring domestic tranquility, maintaining public order, and guaranteeing equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this Constitution. All men are equal before the law, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying
and defending life." Florida State Constitution 1885

Knowing the price they paid to recognize our rights, can we do less than to recognize the right upon which all other rights stand -- personhood of every human being?

Our cause is just and our God is able!

Who: Personhood Florida What: Press Conference announcing submission of the Personhood Amendment to the Florida State Constitution

When: Friday, September 11, 2009, 12:30 p.m.

Where: Waller Park -- in front of the new Capitol, facing the Supreme Court and Duval Street, Tallahassee, FL

Why: It's time to accept the right of "defending life".
It's time to protect the innocent in love and in law.
It's time to recognize constitutional personhood for all human beings.
It's time for Florida to end abortion and euthanasia.

PersonhoodFL is a Christian grassroots non-partisan organization founded to establish personhood efforts across Florida to create protection for every child by love and by law. PersonhoodFL is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through recognizing personhood of the pre-born. When the term "Person" is granted to a human being, it refers to the presence of a particular set of characteristics that grant that individual certain rights such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God given and constitutionally protected rights.

Personhood USA is a grassroots Christian organization founded to establish personhood efforts across America to create protection for every child by love and by law. Personhood USA is committed to assisting and supporting Personhood Legislation and Constitutional Amendments and building local pro-life organizations through raising awareness of the personhood of the pre-born.

Personhood USA
PO Box 486,
Arvada, CO 80001
United States

Click here for a printable version of this press release.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...