THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF 2005 Lacks Vital Language

[Areopagus]

THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT OF 2005 HR 552 IH introduced 2/2/2005
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.552.IH: is supported by Judy Brown’s America Life League. http://www.righttolifeact.org/

The following main points are excerpted:

Will the Right to Life Act outlaw contraception? The Right to Life Act recognizes that a person exists from the moment of conception and therefore any willful ending of that life should be treated like any other instance where one person takes another’s life.

Would this legislation actually overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, it would. The key passage, written by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, states in unequivocal terms: “If personhood is established, the case for legalized abortion collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." (Roe v. Wade, Majority Decision, Section IX)

The pro-life movement keeps trying to make believe that it can work within the framework of Roe v. Wade, gradually chipping away at abortion. At the same time, the number of victims of abortion keeps climbing and well-intentioned laws are struck down time after time by the monolith of Roe v. Wade. http://www.righttolifeact.org/

The U.S. Constitution Amendment Fourteen, Section 1, begins with “All persons born….” No need to proceed beyond the word ‘born’ to know that the Right to Life Act of 2005 will be aborted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Right to Life Act of 2005 would have to be an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, before the U.S. Supreme Court would even consider acknowledging the text. Republicans and pro-life organizations supporting this bill know this to be a fact. The Fifth Amendment will be interpreted in view of Amendment Fourteen, Section 1, “All persons born,” rather than adding the unborn as persons via the Fifth against the States via incorporation of the Fourteenth.

Paul Benjamin Linton is an attorney who specializes in pro-life litigation and legislative consulting, and has served as General Counsel of Americans United for Life. He wrote “How Not To Overturn Roe v. Wade,” 2002 First Things 127 (November 2002): 15-16.

• “No member of the Court—past or present—believes that the unborn child is a "person," as that term is used in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft02...on/linton.html

The argument will be made that the recently appointed Roberts, and the probable appointment of Alito will change that fact. Who will convert Scalia who stated:

"My difference with Roe v. Wade is a legal rather than a moral one: I do not believe . . . that the Constitution contains a right to abortion. And if a state were to permit abortion on demand, I would—and could in good conscience—vote against an attempt to invalidate that law for the same reason that I vote against the invalidation of laws that forbid abortion on demand: because the Constitution gives the federal government (and hence me) no power over the matter." http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft02...on/linton.html

In the 1997 case of Alexander v. Whitman, Alito stated that Kaylyn Alexander was not a "person" under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade: "I agree with the essential point that the court is making; that the Supreme Court has held that a fetus is not a 'person' within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." Republicans will insist that Roberts will change Scalia’s and Alito’s mind.

The commentary on T.A.V. strongly suggests that, at his best, Roberts will not claim that Amendment Fourteen, Section 1. “All persons born….” really does mean the ‘unborn’ in accordance with the text of the proposed Right to Life Act of 2005.

Linton continues:

Seventeen justices have sat on abortion cases since and including Roe, and not one has ever stated that the unborn child is a constitutional person….Dissenting in Roe, Justice Rehnquist stated that "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to this matter [i.e., abortion]." Dissenting in both Roe and Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, Justice White stated that "this issue [i.e., abortion], for the most part, should be left with the people and the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

In his brief dissent in Carhart, Justice Scalia stated that "the Court should return this matter to the people—where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it—and let them decide, state by state, whether this practice should be allowed." Justice Thomas, writing for himself, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justice Scalia, began his lengthy dissent by stating: "Nothing in our Federal Constitution deprives the people of this country of the right to determine whether the consequences of abortion to the fetus and to society outweigh the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the mother."

The Court understands that the purpose and effect of an abortion is to kill an unborn (and, in some instances, a partially born) child. Women need abortion to be legal in order for them to be full and equal members of American society. It is that judgment, and not any misunderstanding of what happens in an abortion, that is the source of our present predicament.

But there is more than silence to indicate the Justices’ views. Dissenting in Casey, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so." This statement, in an opinion that Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice White, and Justice Clarence Thomas joined, quite obviously is not compatible with a recognition of personhood. And in dissenting from the Court’s decision to strike down the Nebraska partial-birth abortion ban, Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas once more urged that the issue of abortion be returned to the states. http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft02...on/linton.html

Over 100 members of Congress have signed onto The Right To Life Act Of 2005 as sponsors/cosponsors. One need not sponsor/cosponsor a bill to vote yea when it is brought up for a vote. The bill may be close to passing the U.S. House. Assuming that it does, and the Senate agrees, Bush might sign it, and SCOTUS might let it stand by 5:4 or more. With God all things are possible?

The Right To Life Act must overcome four obstacles for a nationwide ban on abortion. We The People Act & The Sanctity of Life Act need only overcome three obstacles for a partial ban on abortion. ( “30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion,” Tuesday, October 05, 2004, FOXNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html ) They omit the SCOTUS obstacle. These bills should be less resisted than a nationwide ban, and should be easier to pass. They return the issue to the States where it was prior to federal court intervention in the early ‘70s.

Why does the GOP fail to support We The People Act & The Sanctity of Life Act? Why did pro-life voters fail to support Michael Peroutka in 2004?

As President, I would do everything in my power to end the national disgrace of abortion. Starting with a formal acknowledgment of the person-hood of every child from the moment of conception - and the appointment of U.S. Attorneys, by recess appointment if necessary, who will enforce the Fifth Amendment requirement that no person be deprived of life without due process of law. Source: March for Life Rally In Washington Jan 22, 2004 http://www.theamericanview.com/forum...60&postcount=4

The GOP raves on, and on about Lincoln, but Michael Peroutka would have ignored SCOTUS like Lincoln did. If the issue is mass-murder, why do pro-lifers avoid other means to restrict it, such as interposition stated in the Constitution Party Platform on The Sanctity of Life? Michael Peroutka only needed one third + ONE in the Senate to avoid removal over his action to enforce the Fifth Amendment, if the U.S. House impeached. With God all things are possible?

Dr. Timothy D. Terrell, director of the Center for Biblical Law and Economics, agrees with Scalia:

There is no law against murder in the Constitution-that is not the purpose of that document, or even of the federal government. The Constitution of the United States leaves criminal law to the states, and was never intended to make all crimes into federal issues. Any prohibition against abortion ought to be a state concern, just as prohibitions against any form of murder are state concerns. Pro-lifers who want to use a federal instead of a state route to ending abortion are undermining the intent of the original Constitution. “Pro-Life Principles II: The Right-To-Life Amendment,” July 30, 2002, The Chalcedon Foundation http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/02...730terrell.php

Congressman Ron Paul sounds like Terrell, and Scalia:

The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting federal court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on federal laws, eroding the constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of violence (except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual matters-- with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal government compounds our problems-- for when we lose, it affects all 50 states, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult than dealing with a single state. http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr112004.htm

Would Michael Peroutka have been wrong to take those actions against mass-murder? Lincoln used force to maintain the Union. Would Christ condemn Michael Peroutka for using force to punish evil in view of Romans 13? The oath of Office, and the Declaration forbid no such action. “Whoever sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” was NOT abrogated by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Christ, or any Apostle. Peroutka’s actions would have been Biblical, Constitutional, and conscionable. Bush’s are not, and mass-murder continues unabated.

If the strategy is to throw everything in the Bible, Constitution, and Declaration at mass-murder until something sticks long enough to have a major impact, why do pro-lifers denounce many of the means listed in the Constitution Party Platform on The Sanctity of Life?

We The People Act & The Sanctity of Life Act are no panacea for mass-murder. The language of the bills deceives no one into thinking that they are, but The Right to Life Act of 2005 text and supporters deceives the pro-lifer into believing that it will pass SCOTUS which has been the most dictatorial, and untrustworthy branch of federal government for decades. The dynamic duo of Roberts & Alito will supposedly change all that. That hope is shattered by their own words regarding stare decisis. One-third century of broken pro-life promises and seven Republicans on SCOTUS is more than enough evidence to convict the GOP of complicity in mass-murder. The goal of The Right to Life Act of 2005 is to perpetuate the myth that the GOP is pro-life, and generate contributions to the pro-life organizations that promote those politicians.

Anyone supporting The Right to Life Act needs to include one of two LARGE, BOLD DISCLAIMERS:

1. We support The Right to Life Act, but SCOTUS will not.
   
   
2. We support The Right to Life Act with the inclusion of language that conforms to the Constitution Party Sanctity of Life Platform “We affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.” http://www.constitutionparty.com/par...ty%20of%20Life

We the People Act http://www.theamericanview.com/forum...read.php?t=519 and The Sanctity of Life Act
http://www.theamericanview.com/forum...read.php?t=522 uses U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2 enabling language that bar federal courts from breaking these laws, and that is THE REASON the GOP, and pro-life organizations refuse to include it!

Pro-life organizations opposed Michael Peroutka; they oppose The Sanctity of Life Act; they oppose We the People Act; they oppose impeachment/removal/replacement with judges who need no legislation, or amendment to reverse mass-murder opinions; they oppose interposition by governors, and state officials via legislation banning abortion. The only thing they support is the GOP. A Pox On Both Of Their Lying Mass-Murderous Houses!