How to End Abortion

Ever since Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton forced legal abortion on the entire United States, pro-life people have been trying to end it. Not to minimize the efforts of persuading individuals to keep their babies (after all, that's what our billboards are all about), at some point we need a law that bans abortion. Here are some ways to get there.

1. Supreme Court
The most obvious solution is to change the Supreme Court justices until they will overturn the laws and court decisions upholding abortion, and either ban it or allow states to ban it. We've been trying that ever since 1973. We're closer than we've ever been, but with the current administration, any progress looks blocked for several years.

2. Constitutional Amendment
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution either banning abortion or allowing states to ban abortion is another obvious solution. But constitutional amendments require overwhelming popular and legislative support. This cannot happen until a large majority of the people demand an end to abortion.

3. U.S. Congress
If Congress simply bans abortion, the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional (see point 1). But Congress could first remove it from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, opening the door to either state bans or a federal ban.

Congress could also declare that personhood under the 14th Amendment vests at fertilization, and therefore abortion is banned. This undermines the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade. It is difficult to say what the Supreme Court would do with such a law. But with the current composition, it is likely the majority would find some reason to overturn it.

Both of these questions should be asked of every candidate for U.S. Congress (House or Senate).

4. State Legislatures
The state legislatures can pass a law or constitutional amendment declaring that personhood vests at fertilization, and therefore, abortion is illegal. (Doing it outside the context of abortion, as some current "personhood legislation" does, doesn't really accomplish anything, because it will not be interpreted by the courts to apply to abortion unless the law is explicit.) Just like a federal ban based on the personhood of the unborn, a state law would likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Then the state legislatures would have the opportunity to assert their 10th Amendment reserved powers and defy the U.S. Supreme Court and federal government. That would require the legislature and governor being willing to go without federal money for roads, education, unemployment, welfare, and every other kind of federal aid. It might require a willingness to call up the National Guard to resist Federal Marshals ordered to keep abortion facilities open.

Such a move would require a governor and a majority in the legislature with unusual courage. It would require a majority of citizens to stand with their state leaders and deal with the loss of federal funds. I don't think it would require secession--just a state (or a few states) willing to assert their constitutional powers (popularly called "states' rights").

Every candidate for state representative, state senator, or governor, should answer whether he is willing to stand up to the federal government to protect the unborn.

5. Revival
I've listed every plan I'm aware of to make child murder illegal in our country, or even in a single state. All approaches require widespread popular support, which can only come as a result of spiritual renewal, or revival. Revival is not a fifth option I am suggesting. It is necessary for any of the approaches above. So let's get on our knees before God; then go out and arouse our friends, neighbors, and families to a holy hatred of this child slaughter; and pursue not one of these strategies, but all of them.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

SC Right to Life Act (Personhood) is Dead in House

I attended the Constitutional Laws subcommittee hearing on the state House version of the Personhood bill (H. 3526) in Columbia, S.C., today.

The subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Greg Delleney, will almost certainly not recommend the bill to the next stage.

I had hoped to speak in support of the bill, but the two members of the public who spoke took the entire hour, including the time they spent responding to questions and comments from the subcommittee. Several others also had hoped to speak. I was surprised there was no time limit which would have allowed more members of the public to have a say.

Rep. Delleney made it clear that he wants to save babies' lives, but he did not see a convincing case that the definition of the right to life beginning at fertilization would save a single life. He said he is pushing two bills that will save lives immediately (Born-Alive Protection and 24-Hour Waiting Period) and he isn't going to jepoardize these bills by also pushing the personhood bill, which he views as merely symbolic.

One speaker, Steve Lefemine, advanced a weak argument (the law is a schoolmaster, therefore this definition will lead people to value life more and abort less) to suggest the bill would save lives. The other speaker focused on the fact that the representatives would have to give account to God for the way they vote on this bill, so they must vote as they believe Jesus would.

Rep. Delleney is right that this bill would not save any babies at first, because it does not specifically address abortion. I see it as more than symbolism because it sets the principle forth so that a later abortion ban could be backed up by our state law. An abortion ban could be successful under only two scenarios: the Supreme Court upholds it (requiring a change in the composition of the Court); or South Carolina declares abortion law to be a power reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, and defies the federal government. Lefemine hinted at the latter possibility.

The possibility of a conservative shift on the Supreme Court prior to 2013 seems remote at best. And it is just as hard to imagine a scenario where a majority of state lawmakers and the governor would be willing to defy the federal government or Supreme Court--especially over abortion.

Of course Congress (if the makeup changes dramatically in November) could remove jurisdiction of abortion law from the Supreme Court, but that opens up constitutional issues we have not yet encountered. Again, having such a law signed into law before 2013 would be impossible.

I am disappointed in the subcommittee's decision, because the right to life should be declared to vest at fertilization, whether we can make meaningful policy changes yet or not. I hope to see the state senate go farther with their version (S. 450). (Rep. Delleney pledged to pass it through the state house if the senate passes it first.)

But regardless of the success of a personhood bill, abortion will remain legal for at least a few years. For now we must save as many lives as possible through prayer, education, intervention, pregnancy centers, sidewalk counseling, and legislative restrictions such as Delleney is currently fighting for.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Personhood -- Back on the Table in SC

On Thursday morning, a S.C. House subcommittee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the personhood legislation in our state, the Right to Life Act of South Carolina, H.3526. It states that legal personhood vests at fertilization.

We know that medically and scientifically, human life begins at fertilization. From that moment, this brand new life is genetically 100% human. It is time that our state and nation declared that we will protect all human life from fertilization on.

This legislation does not repeal the abortion laws of our state. It will not prevent a single abortion by itself. It does not put that principle in the context of abortion or any other specific area of law. It is more a statement of principle than policy. But as such it does lay the groundwork for an abortion ban at some later date that could stand up to scrutiny from the Supreme Court.

With this statement of principle in place, if enough state legislators get the courage to ban abortion outright, without exceptions based on the circumstances of conception, the ban could be upheld under portions of the reasoning of Roe vs. Wade.

While the Roe vs. Wade decision made up a right to privacy that included the right to abortion out of whole cloth, the justices made a valid point when they criticized the Texas abortion ban currently in place. You can't logically say that all human life is sacred and deserves protection--unless that life began with the crime of rape. Either human life is sacred or it isn't.

The Roe decision includes this statement: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

Of course the court decided that there was no clear definition of a child in the womb as a person under the law. The Right to Life Act currently under consideration provides just such a definition.

Recognizing the personhood of the unborn does not automatically satisfy Roe vs. Wade, however, as some believe. The decision went on to say: "[W]e do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake."

They then make it a balancing act between the right to have an abortion, the state's interest in protecting the mother's health, and the state's interest in protecting what they call "potential life," which in our day is of course recognized scientifically as very real and existing human life. The Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision further affirmed a right to an abortion prior to "viability."

Roe vs. Wade is an evil and poorly reasoned decision, especially when it extends the right to privacy from government intrusion to include a right to kill a child in the womb.

The S.C. attorney general issued an opinion on this personhood bill indicating that it would probably be upheld as constitutional by the courts, however, it would be held to not apply to abortion, because (1) it doesn't specifically mention abortion, and (2) the courts would interpret it so as to make it conformable to the Roe vs. Wade and Casey decisions.

The personhood of the unborn should be declared, and it provides an important step in supporting a case to prohibit abortion, but it too is subject to judicial interpretation.

So after enacting personhood legislation, we can ban abortion and either wait for the courts to decide whether they will allow it, or we as a state stand up for our laws and assert that the state has the power to ban abortion reserved under the 10th Amendment (as a power not specifically given to the federal government).

The latter course would take courage on the part of our legislators--and probably our governor as well. And courage seems to be lacking among most politicians these days. It might also require some sacrifice on the part of the state's citizens, as federal funding for roads and education might be held back, but that sacrifice would be a very small price to pay in order to stop the killing of over 7,000 babies in South Carolina.

Personhood is a logical and necessary statement that flows from under the Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”). This declaration of personhood also follows from the medical knowledge we have today of life before birth. It follows from the biblical statements about life in the womb. And it follows the constitutional guarantee against depriving anyone of life without due process of law.

This is only the first step down a road that our legislators must commit to with courage--or get out of the way and let real statesmen take their place.

#

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

The Supreme Court and a Culture of Life

Although none of the Supreme Court's decisions this session directly impact abortion, I believe some of these cases relate directly to our culture's respect for life.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court overturned the D.C. gun ban--a victory for life. It makes little sense, indeed, to say a person has a right to life, but lacks the right to protect that life. The right to self-defense flows from the inherent worth of the individual created in the image of God.

As William Blackstone explained in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, "Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed ... in order to preserve them." Blackstone also wrote that the right of "having arms for their defense" is an auxiliary to "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

Of course the Bible, upon which much of England's common law was based, encourages self-defense. As one example of many, Nehemiah instructed the people of God, "Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses." (Nehemiah 4:14)

The Supreme Court's recognition of the right of self-defense, and the corollary right to own handguns as a means of self-defense, is a welcome affirmation of the value of life. Life is, and always will be, worth fighting for.

The court's decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, overturning death penalty laws in six states for the crime of child rape, is a blow to the culture of life. If our society truly valued its children, would we not apply the death penalty to those who commit the most heinous crime against them? The "cruel and unusual punishment" phrase used to justify the ruling must be understood by its original intent. What did James Madison and his contemporaries mean by it? Did not their states allow the death penalty for rape--and how much more in a case where the victim was a child?

To defend the sanctity and worth of every life, we cannot allow perverts to violate children. It makes no sense to protect children's lives but fail to protect them from the worst kind of assault. What penalty other than death could fit the crime of child rape? It seems to be a self-evident law of nature that child rapists have forfeited their right to live. The Kennedy ruling devalues life. All of our lives just became that much cheaper.

The constitutional balance of power between the branches of government is out of kilter when the most important job of a president is to appoint judges. But these cases show us once again that the course of our nation depends on electing a president who will appoint judges who respect the Constitution. Someday, we must limit the judiciary to its constitutional authority. Until then we celebrate the victories, grieve the defeats, and elect presidents and legislators who will give us good kings--I mean, judges.

--
Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

So Much for Free Speech

I commented recently on penalties imposed on "hate speech" (a.k.a., speech the government doesn't approve of) in France. With the political left pushing for hate speech laws in the United States, it is a battle that every American who values his or her right to say things that are unpopular, will soon have to fight.

But we don't have to wait long. Elaine Huguenin, a wedding photographer in New Mexico, will be brought before the New Mexico Human Rights Division because she refused to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony.

It remains a mystery why the agency has even agreed to hear the complaint, as a spokesman for the state said the agency handles discrimination claims "in the areas of employment, housing, credit or public accommodation." Last time I checked, wedding photos didn't fit in those categories. I haven't read the New Mexico constitution, but I seriously doubt it protects the basic human right to have photographs taken of you. But we all know about the rights that courts can find in "living" documents.

How can minor "rights" override major ones? How can a supposed right not to be discriminated against trump the right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment? For that matter, how did the "right to privacy" discovered in Roe v. Wade trump the right to due process of law before an individual is deprived of life?

As we have just seen in the California rulings banning home schooling and legalizing homosexual "marriage," the courts are free to make up the rules as they go. The judiciary was intended to be the most conservative branch (in the sense of resistant to change) of government. It has become the most radical. Change should come as the people's representatives propose it and pass laws. The judges should see that the laws of the land (and in some cases, its traditions) are followed.

The courts are out of control, and the legislature is the only body capable of removing the judges who violate their trust and make new laws. We must get our representatives to undertake that responsibility. And it might not be a bad idea to start working toward constitutional amendments at the state and federal level allowing voter recall of all judges.

If we don't get the courts to follow the laws of the land, we won't have a Constitution left, nor will we have the freedoms it guarantees.


Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Presidential Candidates and the Human Life Amendment

The American Family Association (AFA) has released it's Voter Guide for the 2008 Presidential Primary. The outcry must have been mighty, because the AFA rewrote it and released it again. The specific issues are designed to highlight differences in the positions of the GOP candidates.

The first edition, which only included the top 6 Republican candidates, gave the candidates' positions on the Human Life Amendment (HLA) as an indication of whether they were pro-life. Only Mike Huckabee supports the HLA.

The revised version includes 7 GOP candidates looks at two criteria: overturning Roe v. Wade and federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. All the candidates except for Giuliani and McCain come down on the side of life on both issues. That's a change from earlier positions for Romney and Thompson.

While the first version of the Voters Guide could be misleading, as Huckabee appeared to be the only pro-life candidate, support for the Human Life Amendment is an important benchmark.

What is the pro-life strategy for ending abortion on demand in the US? In Phase 1, we work to restrict abortion as much as possible at all levels of government and to get judges who care about the original intent of the Constitution into office--especially on the Supreme Court. Then those judges overturn Roe vs. Wade by declaring restrictions that violate Roe to be constitutional. At that point abortion is still legal in nearly all states. The issue of abortion has been returned to the states, and some GOP candidates, such as Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, would stop federal involvement there.

In Phase 2, we work at both state and federal levels to restrict and ban abortion wherever possible, unhindered by Roe. Abortion will be banned with varying exceptions in many states, and still be legal in many others.

In Phase 3, we work to enact the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution to recognize the right to human life from the moment of fertilization.

Through all three phases, we must work to save individuals from the horror of abortion and to create a culture of life that views all human life as intrinsically valuable.

A constitutional amendment is not a federal intrusion into state authority--indeed most states must agree to it. So why is Mike Huckabee the only candidate of the top 6 GOP contenders to embrace the HLA?

If abortion is murder, why should we stop short of victory? On abortion there is no substitute for complete victory. While all Republican presidential candidates pledge to support good judges, I want a president who will lead as far as he can to the ultimate victory of life. I want a president who supports the Human Life Amendment. I realize the HLA won't happen for several more years, but I want a president who knows where we need to go, not one who is content to stop at Phase 1.

Wesley Wilson

Wesley Wilson is the President of Let Her Live, a nonprofit dedicated to saving babies by showing the beauty and value of life to women considering abortion. Please learn more about the Let Her Live pro-life billboard campaign. Donations are tax deductible.

Disclaimer: Let Her Live does not endorse or oppose any political candidates, and political views expressed on this blog represent only the personal views of their authors.

The Pretty Picture and the Not So Pretty

Today I saw a 4D ultrasound image of our unborn granddaughter. Her eyes were closed. Her nose is shaped like her big brother's. Her cheeks and lips remind me of her mamma's. She has been growing for five months and is due to be born on her great-grandfather's birthday, a birthday gift that will please him pink.

If her parents believed differently this precious child could be killed any of the nine months inside her mother's womb. If the Supreme Court had not upheld the Congressional ban on partial birth abortion, she would be eligible to die a grisly death that we cannot legally inflict on the worst of murderers.

After partially delivering the baby, the abortionist plunges scissors into the skull to kill it or crushes the skull. It makes me shudder every time I think of it.

But it doesn't make the Democratic candidates for president shudder. Instead they shudder that the Supreme Court would prevent this horrendous procedure.

John Edwards wrote on his website:

I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision. The ban upheld by the Court is an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women.

What John Edwards does not take into account is that "serious threats to the health of individual women" do not require the killing of the baby in the last few months when the little one can live outside the mother's womb. If the mother did not want her, she could be put up for adoption. The judges did take into account that no legitimate health needs of the mother requires the killing of a late-term baby, especially not in such a grisly way. Do you think it's legal to do this to unborn puppies and kittens? Imagine if this had been done to known terrorists in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo! But to an unborn baby? It's important to John Edwards that this method of killing a child be available to women!

How about Barak Obama? Compared to Edwards, he's the model of reason and smoothness, isn't he? Not this time. On his website, he writes:

I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women.

And Hillary Clinton? Being a woman and a mother, having carried a daughter to term, having felt the butterfly kisses of her baby's movements, Chelsea's hiccoughs, and midnight calisthenics, surely she'll oppose the grisly procedure!

Don't count on it!

Mrs. Clinton writes on her website:

This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health. Today's decision blatantly defies the Court's recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Most Americans look at this terrible procedure and wonder how you can justify it. The baby has committed no crime. Yet it is sentenced to a death not allowed to the grossest mass murderer. And partial birth abortion's defenders would scream the loudest against it if Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or Ted Bundy had been put to death this way!

But you see abortion is not about babies. Baby is a four-letter word to liberals. Babies interfere with a woman's availability for sex. Pregnancy can be a deterrent to having fun with a married man or a one-night stand with someone who doesn't want commitments.

Think I'm making this up?

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist who wrote "the most important book of the decade" according to Congresswoman Bella Abzug, said in that book, Right-Wing Women,

It was the brake that pregnancy put on (obscenity for intercourse) that made abortion a high-priority political issue for men in the 1960s.... The decriminalization of abortion...would make women absolutely accessible, absolutely "free." The sexual revolution in order to work, required that abortion be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake. (94-94)

You see, to liberal politicians who pride themselves on civil rights and compassion, abortion isn't about babies. It's about sex. It's about having fun without visible consequences. It's not about the next time a baby loses its life to a pair of scissors; it's about the next time someone wants to "get laid" without consequence or responsibility.

And then, that may not be the only reason they support abortion. There's always campaign contributions from Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry to consider.

I feel dirty now. I think I'll look at my unborn granddaughter's picture and try to guess what name her parents have chosen to surprise us all.

Debbie W. Wilson

Debbie W. Wilson is a human rights advocate, speaker, and author of Christy Award-winning thriller Tiger in the Shadows. Her weekly prayer list for the persecuted church can be found on the home page of Bound Together Ministries.