(LONG VERSION)

WHY PERSONHOOD?  WHAT WILL IT DO?

 

WHY a STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?

 

HUMAN RIGHTS BASED ON THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE MUST BE UPHELD

Most, if not all, prolife groups are committed to the principle that

human life is sacred.  We must promote God’s view of human beings as carrying His image and precious in His sight.  The proposed Personhood Amendment and every effort toward its ratification provides opportunity to demonstrate the humanity of the unborn and the savage way in which abortion destroys this life.  Throughout our nation’s history, social reform has been achieved through efforts which dramatize the injustice by demonstrating the humanity of the victim.

 

THE PRINCIPLE OF PERSONHOOD

Every human being, from the moment life begins, deserves equal protection under the law.  This is the principle of personhood, which guarantees the fundamental right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to each citizen of the US.  The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade removed all legal protection from an entire class of human beings, the unborn.

 

WHAT A STATE PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE WILL DO

Not only do state personhood initiatives bring the tragedy of abortion to the attention of the people, they allow legislators to use it to support prolife legislation and defend it in the courts.  It may allow Montana to take the legal challenge of personhood for the unborn all the way to the US Supreme Court.  While a constitutional initiative does not outlaw abortion, amending our constitution to acknowledge the personhood of the unborn speaks volumes To God, to Montanans, and to the executive, judicial and legislative branches of state and federal government.

 

PERSONHOOD A VITAL PART OF OVERALL STRATEGY

Personhood is a vital part of an overall strategy to end abortion in America and the only strategy on the forefront that gets right at the key weaknesses of Roe v Wade.  Personhood focuses on the root of legalization of abortion in this country which is the denial of personhood and the false doctrine of judicial supremacy.  Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe v Wade himself said that if the personhood of the unborn was established, then their right to life is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment.  That is why we say the personhood of the unborn is pivotal to overturning Roe v Wade.

 

Richard Thompson, president of Thomas More Law Center has said that efforts like our Personhood Initiative are “the best legal means of overturning the central holding of Roe v Wade…For too long the pro-life movement has been dominated by a strategy of wait, too fearful of losing to risk winning.”  Founding members of Montana Prolife Coalition agree, and a look at the

history of national and state prolife efforts show that other

strategies haven’t worked.  More than one million unborn children continue to be slaughtered every in this country, over 50 million since 1973.

 

JUDICIAL & FEDERAL SUPREMACY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

One of the key reasons these efforts have failed is that they accept judicial supremacy as legal precedent, even though judicial supremacy goes against the ultimate law of our land:  the US Constitution.  What is meant by judicial and federal supremacy is the false doctrine that the federal government has broad sweeping power over states and the judicial branch has power over the legislative and executive branches.  That goes directly against our US Constitution that strictly limits the power of the federal government over the states and grants balance among the three powers.  To our country’s destruction, self-proclaimed judicial and federal supremacy, though they have no constitutional basis, have become a reality.  The judges, especially on the US Supreme Court, have gotten away with

applying this doctrine for so long, that most people in the US falsely believe their unconstitutional claims. CLICK HERE to verify the powers of the three branches of our government.

 

 

DIVISION AMONG PROLIFE LEADERSHIP

Acceptance of unconstitutional judicial supremacy is one basis for division in the prolife movement leadership.  Most Prolife groups that oppose state personhood constitutional amendments support instead a federal human life amendment.  They say “Roe v Wade is a federal not state issue” and therefore state initiatives will not provide a direct challenge to Roe v Wade.  One group says state efforts are “not the most beneficial venue to pursue necessary change” because they do not represent a “realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortion in Montana.”  An attorney for one of our large Christian family organization states falsely, “It is within the province of the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and declare what person means.  Congress does not have a similar right. Therefore, only a federal human life amendment or a Supreme Court reversal of its own decision can effectively overturn Roe v Wade.”

 

Another prolife group said of our personhood efforts last year:   “CI-100 will not make abortion illegal in Montana.  Abortion is legal in Montana because the US Supreme Court declared the right to abortion is in the federal constitution. Any state constitutional provision that contravenes a federal constitutional right is void.  If the  Montana PA passes, it will result in lawsuits against the state of Montana, taking this all the way to the US Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court may refuse to hear it or use it to reaffirm the right to abortion…”Notice, these groups accept judicial supremacy as their beginning point, their premise.  That is where we at Montana ProLife Coalition part ways.  It is not that we differ in our desire to end abortion or  our acknowledgement that life begins at conception.  We join together in efforts involving prayer, support of crisis pregnancy centers, and so on.  We differ in our legislative approach.  That is why our thrust  is for personhood of the unborn.

 

STATUTES SHOULD HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS

For the purpose of balance of power, and to follow the founding principles of this government, every statute should have a constitutional basis; amending the constitution becomes the basis for new statutes.

 

SUCCESSFUL NON-LEGISLATIVE PROLIFE STRATEGIES

There is little doubt that non-legislative strategies have saved lives.  Individual and collective prayer, crisis pregnancy centers, peaceful picketing and other loving approaches at abortion mills have all saved lives.  They are a critical part of fighting abortion.  Without prayer, we’d be nowhere.  Unfortunately, thousands of unborn children are still destroyed each day in this nation.

 

OTHER PROLIFE LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES HAVE FAILED

Let’s look at the prolife alternatives to personhood; all have failed repeatedly for 36 years.

1.  The failed approach of a federal human life amendment:  Efforts toward a federal human life amendment entail voting in a president who will appoint prolife US Supreme Court JUSTICES. SEVEN of THE NINE current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were the US  justices at the time of Roe v Wade.  Outgoing pro-abortion justice  Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, now to be replaced by a President Obama appointee.  If we did, by some miracle, get five of nine, or thinking big, nine of nine solid prolife justices, that could usher in a federal life amendment.  We haven’t had 5 of 9 since the 1960s, so is not likely, but even if we did that doesn’t make the false doctrine of judiciary supremacy constitutional.

2.   The failed approach of parental notification, provisions for fetal pain alleviation, regulation of abortion clinics:  these efforts

usually lose in the legislature, and even if they do win in the  

legislative branch, they are shot down by the Montana Supreme Court.  They lose based on the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution being stretched beyond all sensibility.  Besides that, these approaches carry a premise that abortion should be allowed if you meet certain qualifications.

3.  The failed approach of voting prolife candidates into local, state and US political offices:  While it is beneficial and correct to vote for only prolife candidates, that has not made any difference in protection of the unborn. It would make an enormous difference if we did away with judicial supremacy and restored this nation to the law of the land:  the US Constitution.  Without overturning judicial supremacy, we will not be able to do away with abortion.

 

That leaves State Personhood Amendments. While these amendments do not even mention abortion, for the reasons stated above, this is the best frontal attack we have on the unconstitutional, devoid-of-science, Roe v Wade decision.   While A PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT does not outlaw abortion, it is a legal stepping stone toward that end.  It is a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v Wade. It differs

from past prolife strategies that work around the edges of Roe v Wade, embracing the foundational premise of our philosophical adversaries and compromising personhood.  There are no reasonable arguments against it as it is based on logic, science, and common decency.