|
South Dakota vs Abortion
South Dakota, to their great credit, was the first state to pass
legislation specifically outlawing elective abortions in their
state. Instead of
cheering this bold, long overdue move, many pro-life organizations
are not pleased with this new legislation.
A good way to explore this is to hear
arguments by one of the organizations
that wrote an opinon and then give the (dutyisours) response with resultant emails.
After examining the considerations from both standpoints, one can
understand the difficulties we face in winning the hearts of those
who have worked for years with virtually nothing to show for it, yet
also have an intense desire to end the holocaust.
Abortion is the pinnacle of the iceberg of judicial activism having
simply torn the huge deadly hole in the side of the national ship.
Other
examples include unlawful homosexual marriage. Judicial
activism frees horrible criminals
resulting in many other subsequent victims' deaths, including many small
children, due to judge's arrogant lack of a fear of God. The
courts are destroying us. We all know this, denied only by
self-seeking attorneys and those uninterested in truth.
As we see here, how shall we fix the
problem? It all boils down to the right approach. From a
Christian's standpoint, which approach best pleases God?
The following was a letter distributed by the (pro-life organization)
regarding South Dakota's legislation.
|
To: Supporters
Date: April 2006
From:
(pro-life legal organization)
Re:
Is It Time to Confront Roe v. Wade?
South Dakota’s
governor just signed into law a statute forbidding abortion,
except to save the life of the mother. At least four other
states are considering similar laws. As a result, there is
the suggestion that it is time to confront the Roe v.
Wade decision which legalized abortion. Many urge
Alabama to pass a statute. A number of legislators were
interested in filing bills and two were filed. This raises
the question of whether Alabama should begin this process.
The short answer is, we believe the efforts are premature
and could cause great damage.
We have heard the
idea originated with a pro-abortion group in Texas. Their
strategy was to get one more legal precedent into place, in
addition to the leading precedents of Roe v. Wade
(1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania
(1992), before we get a pro-life U.S. Supreme Court
majority. This makes a great deal of sense, since there is
always the prospect of a fifth pro-life justice being added
to the U.S. Supreme Court. The possibility or timing of a
new justice is unknown and cannot be planned, but the
probability is that it may be longer than sooner.
Consequently, there may be time to get another Roe or
Casey affirming decision, which would make it all the
more difficult to overturn the so-called “right to
abortion.”
The South Dakota
law is in direct conflict with Roe and Casey.
This means it will be enjoined by a federal U.S. district
(trial) court, which will be affirmed on appeal by the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. If certiorari
(review) is granted, the U.S. Supreme Court would review the
law and the lower courts’ decisions. What would the U.S.
Supreme Court do?
As most
constitutional lawyers count votes on the U.S. Supreme
Court, there are still only four votes to reverse Roe
and Casey, viz., Justices Scalia, Thomas,
Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. Clear votes in favor of
Roe and Casey are Justices Stevens, Souter,
Ginsburg, and Breyer. That leaves the one remaining vote of
Justice Kennedy. Some suggest Kennedy might change and
swing more conservative with the changing complexion of the
court. However, Kennedy has been consistent in his
middle-of-the-road positions and his passive, if not
sometimes obvious, support of abortion. We believe it is
unlikely Kennedy will vote to overturn either Roe or
Casey. Consequently, we remain in a five-four
pro-abortion majority.
Many are
suggesting that by the time the South Dakota law
matriculates to the U.S. Supreme Court there will be the
fifth pro-life justice who will make up the majority
necessary to reverse Roe and Casey. In 2008
there will be a new president. We cannot predict who that
will be. Even if it is a Republican, we have no assurance
he will appoint a pro-life justice. Cf., Ronald
Reagan’s appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor and George H. W.
Bush’s appointment of David Souter. Also, we have been
waiting since at least 1981 to have a sufficient number of
pro-life justices appointed in order to reverse Roe.
President Reagan appointed Justice O’Connor in 1981, Justice
Scalia in 1984, and then Justice Kennedy in 1988. We were
hoping all would be pro-life justices, but they were not.
Throughout the 1980s we had hopes of gaining a majority on
the U.S. Supreme Court, but it did not happen then and it
has not happened yet. In fact, while we believe Roberts and
Alito will be favorable, there is no guarantee.
It is not wise to
begin now a frontal assault on Roe and Casey.
It would be very detrimental to our effort if a law like
South Dakota’s set another bad precedent. The doctrine of
stare decisis is a very serious doctrine for lawyers
and judges. You probably noted the long debates about it in
the Roberts and Alito Senate hearings. The doctrine is
essentially that once a court makes a decision, it will not
be changed. Appellant courts have a continuing existence
and simply because some of the judges change does not mean
the opinions of the court will change. We have every hope,
however, that the basis for the right to abortion in Roe
is so faulty that it will be reversed someday.
Therefore, we cannot be premature in confronting Roe
or Casey. Our strategy must have all of the
favorable factors in position before we should make this
attempt. Thirty-three years of major legal precedent is not
easily overcome.
We have explained
this to Alabama legislators and they agree the effort may be
premature. Alabama’s unenforceable weak statute with a
broad “health” exception needs to be changed. Section
13A-13-7, 1975 Code of Alabama states:
Any person who willfully
administers to any pregnant woman any drug or substance
or uses or employs any instrument or other means to
induce an abortion, miscarriage or premature delivery or
aides, abets or prescribes for the same, unless the same
is necessary to preserve her life or health and done for
that purpose, shall on conviction be fined not less than
$100 nor more than $1000 and may also be imprisoned in
the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the
county for not more than 12 months.
In conclusion,
please understand that we at ***, as much as any of us,
would like to see Roe and Casey reversed.
However, we must not act precipitously or out of emotion,
but deliberately and wisely.
|
This letter
prompted the following response from (dutyisours):
I appreciate your sharing educational updates with me.
I must strongly disagree with your April 2006 update
regarding Roe v.Wade.
Granted I have no formal legal training except a
business law course in undergraduate studies. Yet,
believe it or not, I believe this is an advantage.
Having read the Constitution and parts of other founding
documents and what I have seen of Blackstone's writings
and some of the founders' personal writings, the words
have not been colored through the altering filters of
others such as the law school professors. With honest
reading, only someone with an agenda could deny the
complete destruction of the founder's intent over the
years, not to forget those who have given their lives to
form this nation.
The Constitution must be understood from it's original
intent, as I believe you agree. Yet I believe we have
been snookered by those who steal power they do not
deserve for years and it is long past time this is
reversed and firmly opposed. Or, shall we ask, how many
more babies must die before we end the slaughter?
I contend that we played this game of the carrot and the
stick over 30 years, allowing the holocaust to grow in
the name of working within the system and the illusion
of incremental gains only to find we have no success.
Yet somehow despite our failures we deceive ourselves
that we are making headway only to find thousands more
have been murdered. Surely you see that with over 30
years, we have proven that this does not work.
In the day of Roe v Wade, the court basically
spoke of first trimester killing, the courts now
includes essentially the infanticide of fully
functioning and able babies, Incrementally we are
worse off. President Bush would have exceptions. It is
a fantasy that such a man would end abortion. In John
Kennedy's time, it was considered murder. If it was
such a burning "right", how could the brother of Ted
Kennedy be silent if he really thought it should be
legal?
Ask yourself if our founders would have stood for this
incremental approach on this "issue". How could we who
care for these children toss darts at South Dakota's
law? They, above all others, finally drew the line in
the sand. One can only hope their frontal assault will
not be abandoned for lack of courage. Adding additional
precedence makes no difference for those who are
perishing and those who see the moral impact of this
evil. It can be reversed in an instant when people
become convicted. Without our unwavering conviction,
there is no way others will be joining us.
Enough for philosophy, how about some factual basis for
these comments. Let's start at the beginning, The
Constitution is supreme law in our nation (although
recognized as subservient to God as Natural Law and
"Nature's God") . Aside from current teaching and
misguided emphasis, repeated precedence (stare
decisis) is not a 'super duper precedent' as Arlen
Specter said. I refer you to a page written from a
legal standpoint
here. In fact, it must be acknowledged that each
justice swears an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States and outside these boundaries they
illegally usurp unwarranted power never intended to
be given to the courts as they violate the supreme law
of the land limiting their power. If a group is found
dangerous with .22 caliber rifles, why would we give
them a nuclear weapon just because they said they
deserve such a weapon. We foolishly have handed over
the balance of power over the years to such a group.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
In 1804, Jefferson
wrote: Nothing in the Constitution has given them
[the federal judges] a right to decide for the
Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for
them... But the opinion which gives to the judges
the right to decide what laws are constitutional,
and what not, not only for themselves in their own
sphere of action, but for the legislature and
executive also, in their spheres, would make the
judiciary a despotic branch.
The Constitution in no way indicates precedence is of
any value whatsoever, although certainly precedence does
have some practical value. Yet, it has no overriding
authority to dismantle our form of government as has
been the case and continues when good folks like you
hand over whatever they ask for when they do not deserve
such respect under the Constitution. As Jefferson said,
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by
the chains of the Constitution." All legislative
authority is given to Congress, none to the judiciary.
Courts do not make law. That is what many good men have
died for, overthrowing the tyranny of an oligarchy or
monarchy. It is the least we can do to strongly oppose
such behavior. Where is a Patrick Henry today?
You can do the vote counting on the different justices
yet my bet is that Alito and Roberts aren't all that
'pro-life' anyway. Alito wrote a concurring opinion
with the majority overthrowing a law against partial
birth abortion from New Jersey. He said: "Our
responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply
controlling Supreme Court precedent. I write briefly to
explain why Carhart requires us to affirm the decision
of the District Court in this case." There is too much
weight given to precedence. For those who have no
conviction against the abhorrent destruction of new
people, precedence likely will include previous Supreme
Court rulings, as Specter pointed out. This was written
about basically infanticide as a reason to strike down a
constitutionally enacted law signed off by the people's
representatives, senators and governor. How could we
support this thinking. Where was dissent???
|
Black's Law Dictionary,
4th Edition:
“The doctrine that a state, in the
exercise of its sovereignty, may reject
a mandate of the federal government
deemed to be unconstitutional or to
exceed the powers delegated to the
federal government… Implementation of
this doctrine may be peaceable, as by
resolution, remonstrance or legislation,
or may proceed ultimately to
nullification with forcible resistance.”
As you know, a main
source the founders used to form of our
legal system, Sir William Blackstone's made
this point.
“[Judges are] not delegated to
pronounce new law, but to maintain and
expound the old one. Yet this rule
admits of exception, where the former
determination is most evidently contrary
to reason; much more, if it be clearly
contrary to the Divine law. But, even
in such cases, the subsequent judges do
not pretend to make a new law, but to
vindicate the old one from
misrepresentation. For, if it be found
that the former decision is manifestly
absurd or unjust, it is declared not
that such a sentence was bad law, but
that it was not law;…”
|
You can bet they believe in precedence, as you said.
Sir, this is unconscionable, trading pleasing the
imperfect Supreme Court justices (with precedence),
theoretically against Alito's own best judgment, at the
cost of additional lives. Now that he has made it into
the club, it is still a crap shoot how he would rule
since precedence overrules his own opinions. How many
more lives will be lost while we deceive ourselves that
we are making headway? Is God finding us faithful?
We say we will play by the rules given to us by the
large group of people doing wrong. We are foolish,
supposedly representing Christ and bowing to the murder
of infants and becoming impotent to bullies who really
are not that powerful. Name one great man of the Bible
who was spoken of favorably when he chose to
compromise? None. The Bible is full of examples of non
compromising people who seemed to lose but God blessed
them. We are to fear God, not men.
When we take the approach that we can wait, that we can
work within a broken system to fix it, we demonstrate to
those who oppose Christian values and life that abortion
is not as important as we claim since we take no risk
and put nothing at stake. It is merely our opinions
verses their own 'equal' opinions, in their views. They
see no burning urgency to stop the overwhelming nonsense
that beckons God to judge our nation with pain and
suffering.
You said: "It
is not wise to begin now a frontal assault on
Roe and Casey. It
would be very detrimental to our effort if a law like
South Dakota’s set another bad precedent.
The doctrine of stare decisis is a
very serious doctrine for lawyers and judges."
We must change the rules. We will never end abortion on
demand incrementally as we have attempted. We must rely
on the plain language of the Constitution as the true
law and frontal assaults will change people's mindsets
as they see our resolve and take notice. As you know
with slavery, etc, precedence is not overriding.
Dr. Alan Keyes said it right.
“You only keep the rights
you stand on. If you don’t defend them by refusing to
surrender them when they are unlawfully wrested from
you, then you won’t have them.”
I hope you see that I have been deliberate and, perhaps,
wise. This is not emotional, there is ample proof that
your wait and see and work around the edges approach has
proven itself bankrupt. Should Alabama join the frontal
assault? At least we will be found faithful and we will
have a greater impact on those Christ told us to reach.
As more states choose to join, perhaps the wave will
grow. Compromise is never God's plan for our lives, as
you know.
I hope you see value in this note. I could only wish
you would retract your previous decision, not based on
what I said but what scripture dictates and where your
own knowledge of our historical foundation points you.
God will hold you to a high standard as church leaders
and others listen to your advice. The scriptures show
us the way, not based on current, fleeting mantra of
precedence. Years from now, Christian historians will
fault us for not having the faith to stop this evil,
God's way.
We have allowed the spillage of innocent blood for which
we deserve God's wrath. Who will end this foolish
incremental approach, now that we have evidence it
fails?
Won't you? Join with those willing to stick their necks
out, like South Dakota. We are not discussing mere
choices. For instance, we are discussing the murder of
up to 9 month old individuals who would live just fine,
given some nourishment outside the mother's body,
today. And, now, why were you saying it was better to
wait?
I would be glad to discuss this with you if you would
like. May God lead both of us and give us wisdom.
Thanks.
(dutyisours) |
The (pro-life)
author replied:
Thank you for your letter. I understand you concern.
However, what we want is not always what we can get,
particularly when we want it. I wish we could rely on
the plain language of the constitution, but those
currently in charge will not permit it. Talk is easy,
but achievement is difficult in this area. I respect
your position.
|
This prompted
the final response from (dutyisours) before complete silence.
You can never obtain what you do not attempt to get.
Respectfully, taking your approach relinquishes control
to those who are not rightfully "in charge", or is that
just a silly concept that our founding fathers believed
in? In the meantime, thousands die. Talk is not easy
for me, though. I put my reputation on the line (a
reputation that took many difficult years to achieve)
every time I go against the stream. At the same time,
we must reason (as Paul did) with those willing to
hear. Talk is basically all you do as an attorney.
This is largely true for me too.
It really isn't what I want. I would much rather be
doing other things and ignore this stuff.
Unfortunately, we cannot choose to ignore this. Would
it be unreasonable to be concerned that God's judgment
is falling upon us and we are paying for our sins?
Achievement is not as difficult as it seems. We take
our votes away from the Republicans (with few
exceptions) and give to those worthy, therefore pleasing
God (Duty is ours; results are God's) and at the same
time giving the others a wakeup call. But, then again,
that was the origin of the Republican Party from a
'third party' to one of the 'serious' parties in
Lincoln's time. Even the homosexuals can show great
strides, they show steadfast commitment- all we need is
commitment and a zeal that rubs off on the complacent
ones (of course we also have the Holy Spirit). South
Dakota showed this. Speaking boldly will change minds.
We have not done that (including me) and we invite God's
judgment to punish some and to turn the hearts of
others.
We need to remind the judges that they are not the
ultimate arbiters of justice, they will
answer to Almighty God for their decisions with
ultimately eternal damnation at high risk. We all
will. They need a wakeup call. Yes, they need a fear
of God. The pulpits have let us down here. Yet,
someone must. Bonhoeffer and Niemoeller are known for
their choice of non compromise against Hitler. What
happened to the others who tried to work within the
system? Lost in their compromise and never to make a
difference, not listed in history books and even
vilified in history. In fact history shows that the
fully committed make a difference. Full speed ahead
without compromise. Compromise will happen on occasion
but it is better to compromise from a point of full
expectations for an outcome than one having already
given up part of the fight. South Dakota is a wakeup
call.
Those currently in charge? Where are the people
standing up reminding the people that 'we the people'
are in charge and we must end this judicial tyranny?
The judges work for us. Right? Those who can impeach
work for us too, right? A committed minority will
change a complacent majority. There are currently fewer
abortions, people are changing but this has next to
nothing to do with political change. Politicians will
follow the people.
This is
scriptural!
I have found the Constitution Party candidates most
worthy of my votes. Democrats and Republicans can count
my vote in the small pile not coming to them. It is a
real vote, our true currency in running our republic.
Wake up the church and this pile grows. Howard
Phillips' plan would end legalized abortion on the first
day of office if he (or Michael Peroutka last time) were
elected. I know and have explored the defeatist,
foolhardy, self-fulfilling prophecy on my web site that
says 'he cannot win'. Yet, can we continue to wait
while people are being killed? This is a no-compromise
'issue'.
I assume you would rather not deal with me. I merely am
an annoyance to the more important things you are
doing. If you should, for any reason, care to discuss
this in person, I would be glad to meet with you. I
know you are working hard on this 'issue'. Perhaps it
is long past time to revisit our approach. Your
approach has a 30+ year record of failure. Don't waste
your time working on lesser approaches or waiting on
what will come only after God's judgment on us since we
did not fix it ourselves using a Biblical approach.
Thanks and God Bless.
(dutyisours)
|
As you can see, this is an uphill battle. Instead of
acknowledging the obvious failure of their approach as things
have clearly worsened, the trapped individuals deny the ability
to reverse this death spiral trend. Instead of seriously
considering an approach as dutyisours has suggested, these
organizations have given up the battle and became rather content with
business as usual and the fantasy of hope for future success.
It is easier to ignore truth, certainly easier than considering
they have wasted so much time and effort. By all means,
don't waste time discussing this reasoning with dutyisours.
As we saw our
president's struggles in Iraq and with abysmal poll numbers, he finally decided it
was time to get other opinions as how
to best handle the Iraq situation. The most powerful
individual on earth realizes that he should consult others when
his own group of advisers have a poor track record. If
only the Christian leaders were as wise. They hold on to
their failures yet will not listen to others. Even others
who follow the Biblical approach. Reasoning is absent in
those circles, as sad as it is to say. Will we wake up?
We Christians
are indebted to our founding fathers (and ultimately God
Himeself) for such a sound
Constitution based on Biblical principles and constructed with
wisdom. Unfortunately, many of us have checked out to good
organizations who theoretically are doing our work and whom we
support. We are more commonly finding decision making by
these organizations that regrettably ignore dissenting
approaches even though their chosen approaches have dismally
failed for 30+ years. They will hold fast to the broken
court system and their illegal, self-serving, biased,
opinionated decisions instead of reforming the destructive
courts to find true justice and law.
It looks like
dutyisours has more time to write than the pro-life
organization, as they seem so busy. Simply not true.
One even wonders if they took time to read the last email.
Why is dutyisours doing this effort? It must be done. If only the good guys
would embrace this understanding. But again, it isn't only dutyisours' job, even though
dutyisours merely plays a small part.
It is also your job, whoever you are, to reform our nation and to save babies
and ultimately ourselves.
Minds cannot
be changed with merely sound bites. It takes reasoning.
Thanks for spending enough time to read this. It is very
simple.
Yet, it is not easy. We must change.
Copyright © 2006, Dio, Inc.
mailto:diojqa@dutyisours.com
Dio, Inc.
P.O. Box 1811
Pelham, AL 35124
|
