New Stanek WND column, “Personhood initiatives proliferate”
On Monday, a star-studded pro-life line-up – Lila Rose, Judie Brown, Pastor Walter Hoye, and Bella movie producers Jason Jones and Leo Severino – announced the launch of the CA Human Rights Campaign.
This will be an effort to add the Human Rights Amendment as a CA ballot initiative in 2010.
If passed, the amendment would “recognize[ ] the inherent human rights, dignity and worth of all human beings from the beginning of their biological development,” read a statement.
In other words, we have here another personhood initiative.
This followed the Aug. 24 announcement that the CO Title Board had approved language for a personhood ballot initiative redo there in 2010.
And the Sept. 2 announcement that the MT attorney general had approved language for a personhood ballot initiative there in 2010.
And the Sept. 11 announcement that language had been submitted to the FL secretary of state for a personhood ballot initiative there in 2010.
And the Sept. 17 announcement that pro-lifers had submitted language to the MO secretary of state for a personhood ballot initiative there in 2010….
Then there are the legislative personhood efforts….
So the personhood movement has quickly grown too big to contain, and it has not been just pro-aborts interested in doing so….
The most interesting educational component of personhood endeavors is what they force the other side to admit. From the LA Times…
Read my column, “Personhood initiatives proliferate,” in its entirety at WorldNetDaily.com.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That such a wonderful thing should happen in LA LA Land is just astonishing! With Lila, Judie, Walter, Jason and Leo working together… I almost feel sorry for the other side! (Almost!)
It was SCANDALOUS beyond belief, in my estimation, for the purported Bishops of Georgia to REFUSE to support a State ‘Human Life’ Constitutional Amendment, for the specious reason that a federal amendment would be better.
Instead of listening to their legal advisors, who DO NOT HAVE A CATHOLIC CLUE about the matter, how about listening to GOD ALMIGHTY via the INFALLIBLE Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals? “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” Just how many more innocents have to die before our bishops get this right?
Why would ANY CATHOLIC, much less a bishop or a priest, NOT SUPPORT ANY effort to stop baby killing on ANY level, federal, state, or local, IMMEDIATELY? How Catholic bishops can take such an unprincipled public stand in discouraging a state from stopping baby killing makes a mockery of the aforementioned Catholic moral teaching, i.e., it cries out to Heaven for vengeance!
What the heck are these bishops waiting for? They had state representatives who are more Catholic than they are by orders-of-magnitude, and they will give them NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!
That is a MORTAL SIN, since this is known grave matter via consistent Church teaching, the world knows it is grave matter, and yet our fraudulent bishops do the devil’s work by DISCOURAGING those who are trying to do God’s work. IT JUST DOES NOT GET ANY MORE SERIOUS THAN THIS, which is a prime example of why the institutional Church is NO LONGER CATHOLIC, and HAS NOT BEEN since the allowed built-in ambiguities of Vatican II, by those who would destroy the Church from within, did their nefarious work!
It is common knowledge that even if Roe v. Wade was overturned, that would not stop baby killing on the state level, which means that any state initiative to do the right thing on ANY MORAL ISSUE, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, stem cell research, et al, such as reported below in Georgia, DESERVES THE UNRESERVED SUPPORT of Catholic clergy and laity in this country!
Fraudulent pro-life candidates and some prominent judges tell us that the states should decide this serious issue in a democratic fashion via some type of popular vote, no doubt! It is NOT Catholic teaching that God’s laws are subject to MOB RULE ON ANY LEVEL! When are Catholics, who are NOT supposed to check their faith at the door upon entering public life but rather to WITNESS to it for salvation’s sake, per the end of Matthew’s Gospel, going to get that right, especially Catholic clergy?
Man’s laws are subsidiary to God’s in the moral order, PERIOD! And if that seminal truth is not in federal and state constitutions, then it darn well should be; else, they are not worth interpreting!
I find it sad that, when God works through state legislators, high-ranking clergy, who should be excommunicated for their public sins, discourage His work.
Jill,
I am inclined to think these amendments are exactly the right strategy. They work in the way your born alive legislation worked; they are positive efforts expressing and protecting basic truths positively. This is more robust than addressing the negative attacks (abortions) against the misdefined (fetus). This is why they force the other side to retreat (as most did in the born alive efforts) or to admit basic truths (as cited in your article).
Abraham Lincoln became the most effective spokesman for abolishing slavery (besides being the most effective abolitionist in fact) because he focused on the primary definitional issue: is the slave a human being? You have helped us by focusing the issues upon the baby’s humanity; these new efforts seem to do the same.
All pro-choicers have is language manipulation and rhetoric to crutch them. They don’t have science, they don’t have the Natural Law, they don’t have Equal Justice. No argument holds water. And when your on the losing side, dishonesty is the rule of the game.
When pro-lifers explain the abortifacient nature of hormonal birth control, pro-aborts accuse us of myth-making … that there’ no science to support it … the Pill works be preventing fertilization and ovulation.
However when pro-lifers move toward legally protecting persons in utero, suddenly pro-aborts are the FIRST to whine about a potential ban on birth control.
So which is it? What do they believe?
Cranky do pro-choicers really deny that some birth control can prevent implantation in the event if breakthrough ovulation? I’ve never actually heard them say that can’t happen. It just make a difference to most.
And that’s why personhood initiatives which threaten the legality of birth control are even less likely to succeed than making abortion illegal.
Here’s a comment and then a couple of brief questions.
COMMENT: The more I hear Cal Zastrow and the Personhood advocates speak aboutthis strategy, the more I am convinced that it is the right way to go. A “person” is described in the US Constitution as having inalienable rights given to us by our Creator God. Yet we needed an amendment to describe blacks and minorities as “persons.” Now we need to define all human beings as persons from their biological beginnings.
Reading to the end of your article on WND, however, I admit that I am one who is “uncomfortable” with allowing the pro-abortion media to turn this into a debate about birth control. At the press conference in Tallahassee, Dr. Patricia McEwen was asked if this amendment would ban ABORTIFACIENT birth control. She correctly equivocated her answer to explain that it would first need to be established which forms of birth control are abortifacient and which are contraceptive. The next day, almost all the headlines in Florida newpapers had variations on the following: AMENDMENT WOULD BAN BIRTH CONTROL and would GRANT HUMAN RIGHTS TO A FERTILIZED EGG (a “fertilized egg” is an oxymoron).
While I am against all forms of abortifacient birth control, I believe that it is a mistake to let the other side define the terms of debate. We can win by emphasizing what most of the population in many states already believes — that all human beings are persons at their biological beginnings.
However, we will certainly lose if the public is given the false understanding that it will limit their ability to use artificial and chemical forms of contraceptives, as well as estrogen therapy that actually results in fertility for women trying to conceive, or for various menstrual disorders, and so on.
It is a big mistake to meet this distortion head on by trumpeting: “Yes, finally the pro-aborts understand that birth control is abortifacient and we want to ban that too!”
I am excited about Personhood because I believe that this is the way we will eventually win. But I am discouraged to see the language being shifted by the pro-aborts to emphasize “birth control” (which included contraceptives in most people’s thinking) and “fertilized eggs” instead of keeping the emphasis on the definition of a “person.”
They know our language is powerful and that is why they are trying to distort it.
QUESTIONS:
What is your plan to address the diversionary tactics of the pro-abortion media to shift public perception of the amendment toward “birth” control” and “fertilized eggs”?
What kind of language should we use when answering questions about this?
“just DOESN’T make a difference”
Hey Jill, I just had to say thanks for this column. I hadn’t thought about contraception when I first got involved in the pro-life movement. But, you are spot on. It needs to be brought out. Keep it up.
Jill,
I am very pro-life but I cannot in good conscience vote “yes” on this.
I take birth control for medical reasons. I have been married for over 11 years and want nothing more than to have a baby. However, due to medical problems beyond my control, I MUST take birth control to ensure I have a monthly menstrual cycle. If I don’t take birth control, I do NOT get my period and have suffered from hemmoraging that almost killed me, anemia, scar tissue build-up on my reproductive organs, etc.
If this group would at least eliminate the proposed ban on birth control from the language of the amendment, I would support it. However, as is, they do not have my support.
Maureen, just in case you’re interested, I wanted to say that natural progesterone can possibly help your cycles to continue. And it’s much safer than taking the pill.
You might discuss it with your doctor- a lot of women have had much success getting their periods back to normal, using natural progesterone. (the prescription bio-identical kind is called “prometrium”- my doctor prescribed it to help my pregnancy along. It has many great uses).
I recommend the book, “What your doctor may not have told you about premenopause”, which deals with a lot of this…it’s very interesting and informative. You can get it at amazon.com pretty inexpensively.
Oh and I should have added, I’m sorry that you’ve been having to deal with this. I hope that you will find a solution soon, so that you can have the baby you’ve been hoping for!
l also need to mention that on the birth control pill, there is no shedding of the lining of the uterus, therefore there is no actual period bleeding that occurs. The bleeding that happens when you’re on the pill is “hormone withdrawal bleeding”.
Jill, Could you possibly write a “how to” series for the different states that are now collecting petitions. The Florida initiative will take a miracle. We need to circulate over a million petitions and collect over 600,000 valid signatures!
Could you help us get the word out??
People can download petitions at:
http://personhoodfl.com
Maureen, I’m sorry for your troubles. But as Bethany indicated, the Pill is no cure. It merely masks the symptoms. Consider finding yourself a good NFP doctor. Check out http://naprotechnology.com/.
Jay, I’m no expert on this, but from what I observed when Michigan Right to Life garnered a record number of signatures in a very short period of time for their petition override of Granholm’s veto of their partial birth ban, they had an organized network of affiliates who distributed petitions. In your case you need to try to tap into pro-life organizations and churches. You also may need to hire help.
Posted by: Maureen at September 30, 2009 1:07 PM
“If this group would at least eliminate the proposed ban on birth control from the language of the amendment, I would support it. However, as is, they do not have my support.”
The CA Human Rights Amendment Reads:
“The term “person” applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development, regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability. ”
http://californiahumanrightsamendment.com/content/amendment
As you can see, the language includes no such language that Maureen suggests.
The effect of the amendment, if passed, will be the constitutional protection of every human being. Yes, this means that human beings will be protected from being killed by so-called “contraceptives” that are designed to act as abortifacients.
I would join in with Jill and Bethany and urge all women who have fertility problems, including infertility problems, to take a look at http://naprotechnology.com. Dr. Hilgers is way ahead of the curve when it comes to treating fertility problems, practically alone in the approach of treating the root cause of the problem and achieving health for his patients instead of the standard of care in women’s health, which is to merely treat the symptom(s).
Would someone like to address the many flaws with this proposal?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWY2OTI5NThkNThhYWU1NTgzZWRhMWIxN2Y3YjA3ZDc=&w=MA==
In writing the Roe v. Wade decision, Republican judge Henry Blackmun completley conceded the critical relevance of the personhood of the unborn. Feel free to go read the full decision to corroborate this.
“[If the] suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”
— From the 1973 Roe v. Wade Decision Justice Blackmun Writing for the Majority Opinion
The value of a personhood amendment or law is not simply to “educate” the public. The campaign to pass that law/amendment can certainly do that, of course. But the value of it passing is that it completely, automatically trumps Roe. Blackmun rightly recognized that if the unborn child is a person, then the 14th (and he failed to mention also the 5th) amendments explicitly protect the right to life of a person. That is the federal constitution, and NO state has the right or authority to have legal murder of persons; it is not a state’s rights issue, at all. A personhood bill/amendment even trumps FOCA completely. It automatically trumps everything.
Now, could a wicked, pro-abortion judge throw it out, rule against it? Of course that could happen. Of course, we should not oppose a measure just because it might not work out; we have faith and trust in God for the victory. But the issue of personhood trumps all others in the battle against abortion.
On the other hand, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would still be legal in every single state. (Not that it’s going to be overturned in the remotely near future, since only 2 justices on the Supreme Court support overturning Roe, and even they don’t believe the unborn have a right to live.)
Justsaying, in one breath you say:
“As you can see, the language includes no such language that Maureen suggests”.
and then in the next you contradict yourself:
“Yes, this means that human beings will be protected from being killed by so-called “contraceptives” that are designed to act as abortifacients.”
Maureen wants the amendment re-worded such that it does not endanger her right to take oral contraceptives which, in addition to preventing ovulation, might interfer with implantation.
So what are you actually “just saying”, justsaying?
I would join in with Jill and Bethany and urge all women who have fertility problems, including infertility problems, to take a look at http://naprotechnology.com. Dr. Hilgers is way ahead of the curve when it comes to treating fertility problems, practically alone in the approach of treating the root cause of the problem and achieving health for his patients instead of the standard of care in women’s health, which is to merely treat the symptom(s).
Posted by: just saying at September 30, 2009 2:40 PM
Jamie, Did you read the article about the “Blackmun Myth?” Convincing the public about the personhood of the unborn is a good idea, but it is a lousy legal strategy.
Vivian,
I apologize for the confusion.
I was “just saying” :-) that there isn’t any explicit ban because this amendment is not a ban at all, but instead it is a recognition of the common sense reality that a human being is necessarily a person and must be recognized as such by our laws. I wonder who those who want to keep using contraception would suggest we exclude from this? Are the decriminalization of birth control and laws with exceptions not what brought on the dehumanization of the preborn in the first place?
I submit that it is not the burden of those looking to have our laws reflect what is just (that all human begins be recognized and protected as person), but that the burden is on the scientists, pharmaceutical companies and medical community to come up with ways to treat the diseases and fertility/infertility problems that afflict so many women in ways that don’t compromise the health of their preborn children. As much as the pro-abortion side prides itself in advocating for women’s health, they are, in fact, keeping women’s reproductive health practices in the dark ages. The fact that one “miracle pill” is prescribed for a myriad of entirely different pathologies is unethical. “The pill” functions to merely mask the problem, not treat the problem and bring the woman back to health. This is abhorent and it is an affront to the intelligence of women and integrity of the OB/GYN profession. Simply unconscionable.
Women deserve better than this sub-par treatment for very real, painful health problems that when left untreated often lead to permanent infertility, which many women can attest to is a suffering in and of itself.
As several people have mentioned before on this thread, there are ethical and much more effective ways to actually *treat* the diseases that afflict women, causing infertility/fertility problems. Pharmaceuticals that are actually designed to kill human beings are unethical and it is a tragedy that these are give to women with the promise that it will “treat” their problems and that they have to do this at the expense of the lives of their children.
In summary, the amendment does not explicitly address banning any birth control, so there is no language to omit to assuage her fear.
To provide exceptions for any method or means that is designed to kill human beings would be to undermine the principle of personhood, that EVERY human being is a person, without exception.
Charles, I did read the article, and I couldn’t disagree more strongly. The author claims that state personhood amendments and laws can’t change the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
Of course, that is exactly why a state personhood amendment or law WOULD work. The meaning of the 14th Amendment says that no person can be deprived of life without due process. All a state measure would change is the rightful recognition in that state that the unborn is a person, and therefore, that life MUST be protected exactly BECAUSE that state won’t have the authority to change the meaning of the 14th Amendment which protects the right to life of any person.
Personhood is the ONLY legal strategy. All of this useless “regulation” is nothing more than just being concerned with how to kill babies legally, and it denies the personhood and right to life of the unborn.
“In summary, the amendment does not explicitly address banning any birth control, so there is no language to omit to assuage her fear”.
The amendment may not explicitly address birth control, but it’s obvious that it would criminalize hormonal contraception and IUD’s that interefer with implantation. It is not a matter of OMITTING language. It would be a matter of CHANGING the language, which of course changes the whole message.
I’m just saying…..
By the way, I wanted to mention… I’m surprised a couple people were not mentioned in the above article. Keith Mason is a huge force in the personhood movement across the country, as a leader representing the revolutionary pro-life group PersonhoodUSA. He was at the press conference for the California initiative, he fielded questions from reporters, he represented the measure on NPR in a live radio debate against NARAL. I’m surprised he wasn’t mentioned in the article.
Also, the young and courageous Lila Rose, who has been doing infamous undercover sting expose’s against Planned Parenthood’s systematic criminal activity (since she was only 15) is truly awe-inspiring. She is a strong personhood proponent, and is a co-sponsor of the personhood bill in California! She was well worth mentioning, as well!
Yikes, I just realized I overlooked that Lila Rose IS mentioned right at the start of the article. I have no idea how I missed that!
Posted by: Gary M. at September 30, 2009 11:27 AM
Instead of listening to their legal advisors, who DO NOT HAVE A CATHOLIC CLUE about the matter, how about listening to GOD ALMIGHTY via the INFALLIBLE Teaching Magisterium of Holy Mother Church on faith and morals? “THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” Just how many more innocents have to die before our bishops get this right?
—————————————————–
It is called the PRS (Present Religious System).
Get used to it, or get over it, or better yet, get out of it.
It is fatally flawed. Examine any denomination. They are only different by degrees.
They are only different by degees from Judaism.
Even Jesus had to go ‘outside the camp’ of the PRS.
The PRS is not going to get better. It is only going to get worse.
One point of correction. “Thou shall not kill.” is not the most accurate translation.
The hebrew word ‘ratsach’ translated ‘kill’ would be more accurately translated ‘murder’.
Strongs #7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh’); a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:
The hebrew word ‘ratsach’ that it is translated from means to lay in wait for your intended victim and to ambush him and dash him to pieces with a stone or metal weapon. It suggested malice and premeditation.
All murder is killing, but not all killng is murder.
How about listening to Father God via Holy Spirit.
Jesus sent Holy Spirit to us to lead us into all TRUTH as counselor, teacher, guide.
yor bro ken
As a fellow lawyer, I am very surprised that Clarke Forsythe in his NRO article completely overlooks the Tenth Amendment and the fact that the conservatives on the court have spent 20 years developing this theory. Read Justice Scalia’s dissent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Read it here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/casey/scalia.asp
Interestingly, Scalia quotes another dissent, this one is from the infamous Dredd Scott:
“”[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (dissenting opinion).”
in that respect, Personhood is not only a wise move in the fight against abortion, it is also a wonderful tool against Judicial Tyranny and for true comstitutional democracy.
The alleged abortifacient effects of hormonal contraception are very debatable.
I do not believe these personhood amendments will work. In all likelihood, none of them will pass. Even if one does, if the abortionists control the Supreme Court, they will just strike it down.
The amendment in Florida is particularly tough because apparently they need to get 600,000 signatures. Then, unlike other states that require a 50% vote, Florida needs 60%. They will probably get only about 30% when all is said and done. This means an enormous amount of energy and effort will be expended for an amendment that will fail by a very wide margin, would not affect Roe vs Wade even in the unlikely event it passed and unborn children will continue to be killed by the millions.
This amendment strategy is simply not going to work. We need to defeat abortionist politicians at the federal, state and local levels and replace them with humanitarian political leaders. There is simply no substitute for doing this.
If you want to stop the killing of unborn children, you must get politicians who support abortion crime out of power. No other way to do it.
HuckFinn, a 1998 statement by a Christian organization isn’t very convincing…
I wonder if Forsythe has any children, and if they ever break any of the rules he has for his household. He can make the rules, but unless there is an implicit desire to go along with them, his kids are still going to eat candy before dinner and women will still have abortions.
These personhood movements will lead to greater educational efforts, and THAT is the true key to ending abortion, not getting a judge here and a legislature there to make piecemeal erosions in legalized abortion.
“If you want to stop the killing of unborn children, you must get politicians who support abortion crime out of power. No other way to do it.”
Posted by: Joe at October 1, 2009 5:55 AM
How are you going to do that Joe, when they don’t have the support of the voters?
There is nothing in any of the above posts to in any way make oppostion to the variouis personhood amendments seem to be justified. In fact, I know of no reason for any prolifer to oppose them in any way. A lack of confidence in their effectiveness is a very, very poor reason to oppose them, and tends to suggest sympathy with the proabort POV.
Jamie and “just saying”, excellent posts!
I do not oppose the personhood amendments. I support them and would vote for one if it were on the ballot. I just don’t think they will work and the vast energy and effort and money put into them would be better spent elsewhere.
“There will be no infallible definitions. All that was done by former Councils. That is enough. (Pope John XXIII) —Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 13, 1896
The Consilium under the heretic-eventually banished Bugnini, did the same as the Protestants before it. The corrupters of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, changed the Nicene Creed to remove Catholic doctrine on the personhood of the unborn when it deleted the part of the Creed as follows:
The relevant Latin words in the text of the Nicene Creed are ‘ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO EX MARIA VIRGINE ET HOMO FACTUS EST’.
These are the words which traditionally were printed in block capitals with an accompanying admonition that while these words are being recited all genuflect.
The authentic translation of these words is
‘AND BECAME INCARNATE BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND WAS MADE MAN.’
These however are the words which have been suppressed in the vernacular version of the Creed recited in American churches, having been replaced by the following words:
‘BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT HE WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND BECAME MAN.’
Needless to say these words are in lower case. The essential point to note however is that whereas in the Latin text and in any authentic translation of the Latin text it is affirmed that Christ became ‘INCARNATE OF THE VIRGIN MARY AND WAS MADE MAN’ in the vernacular text recited in all American churches it is stated merely that he (sic) was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man—the clear implication being that He became man not at His incarnation but at His birth.
Abortion is NOT legal. We are allowing people to act as if it is. Abortion is the taking of innocent life. Or in other words, murder. No one can EVER legalize murder. We do not need to overturn Roe. 200, even 100, years ago, Americans understood this. Roe v. Wade is a court OPINION. It is not law. We can just ignore it. What we need is Godly men in office who understand this. It’s called the Doctrine of Interposition. A governor, a state’s attorney, a SHERIFF, the President. Any of these can just start prosecuting abortion – TODAY! See http://www.ignoreroe.com. For more info on interposition, please see http://www.theamericanview.com, http://www.iotconline.com. Michael Peroutka gave an outstanding talk about interposition. You can see it live by going to either of these websites and following the links.
We are spending time and millions of dollars on the wrong battle!!! Read what the States did with the Dred Scott decision. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolves. We need to educate ourselves and take right action. A great CURRENT example of what I’m talking about is Georgia House Bill 1 introduced by Rep. Bobby Franklin. I highly recommend that you download the text and read the whole thing – including the footnotes. THIS is the strategy we need to understand and act upon. Voting on whether a person is a person could backfire. First of all, we can’t vote on what God has designed. Second, we are not a democracy. Do we really want to leave the definition of personhood up to a majority vote? What about chimpanzees? We could then ask to vote on whether chimps are people. Please, go to http://www.ignoreroe.com or the other sites. Read the info. Look at Bobby Franklin’s bill. Support him. We need him, and we need others like him.