Outlawing Abortion FAQ's

Forum (Articles)	Offer	Partners	Rules	Tips	FAQ	Begin!	Donate

This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC). Interaction from other writers will be distinguished from my writing with horizontal lines above and below. Your response to anything you read here is most welcome. Please add your response next to what you are responding to. If your reaction is not to any specific part of this article, please add general comments on the "Discussion" page.

Introduction

So far the objections to the plan of "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts" are not made by those who have read it, so they are not that any specific part of the plan is legally incorrect or politically unrealistic. Rather, they are mostly justifications for not studying it. If a challenge emerges to the legal correctness of the plan, that will be addressed first. The lawmakers who raised these objections are not identified except by code.

Let me say it more carefully: for decades, there have been general objections to any substantial outlawing of abortion, calling that a legally incorrect pipe dream. It is this plan, founded on the full range of court-recognized findings of facts in every category of court-recognized finders of facts, that has not yet been attacked as legally correct. Many of those general objections of the past would seem to apply to this plan, so this plan addresses them. So far no failure of this plan to address them has been argued.

Lawyers' Objections

How can a law ending abortion survive courts? Everyone knows Roe v. Wade is precedent upon precedent

Indeed, "precedent upon precedent" is what Justice Kavanaugh called Roe during his confirmation hearings. But along with Roe's "holdings" that made abortion legal are holdings, just as entrenched, that tell what must be "established" for legal abortion to "of course...collapse". That information has now been overwhelmingly established.

Number One of the "findings of facts" in our "'Outlawing abortion in compliance with Roe' Act" summarizes those holdings, using quotes from Roe:

1. Iowa must “of course” outlaw abortion, Roe v. Wade ruled, when the fact is “established” that “life begins” at fertilization. No fact could be more legally established, being the consensus of all legal authorities who have taken a position, in every category of court-recognized finders of facts – juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, Congress, and individual judges. No legal authority has affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not in fact a human/person, or that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization, including Roe which said “the judiciary...is not in a position to speculate”. The right to make decisions about one’s own emotional health does not justify “the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection”, which “we would not have indulged in” had we understood that was the “necessary consequence”.

Evidence in support of the claim: JURIES: When prolifers blocked abortionists’ doors until 1993, the only seriously disputed issue at trial was whether human lives were saved. The earliest juries ruled that they were, and acquitted, until judges stopped allowing defendants to present their defense to juries. A law school journal reports: “After the court ruled that it would allow the Defense to go to the jury, the ... Clinic dropped the prosecution.” (Necessity as a Defense to a Charge of Criminal Trespass in an Abortion Clinic, 48 U.Cin.L.Rev. 501, 502 (1979).

EXPERT WITNESSES: “If the defense is permitted, evidence is introduced that life begins at conception. This evidence [from doctors, geneticists, or scientists] is rarely contradicted by the prosecution....” Ibid.

INDIVIDUAL JUDGES: For example, Judge Clark, who ruled for a defendant who flew in a world renowned geneticist from France to testify. Clark was overruled with zero mention of any evidence in City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285 (1993).

STATE LEGISLATURES: “At least 38 states have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012)

CONGRESS: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d). Clause (c), which establishes law, doesn’t diminish this fact.

Isn't evidence that babies are in fact humans thrown out of court as irrelevant? Roe ruled that they are not persons "as a matter of law"

That's what lower courts said in thousands of abortion prevention cases. But fortunately for babies, that is the opposite of what Roe said. Nor has any later SCOTUS precedent said abortion must still remain legal even after unborn babies are legally recognized as fully human. The second Finding of Fact we propose claims:

2. The 14th Amendment protects those who are in fact people, and invalidates laws and precedents which do not. The theory of lower courts that Roe said unborn baby humans are non-persons “as a matter of law”, making irrelevant the evidence that in fact they are fully human so that killing them is murder, is absurd, and the opposite of what Roe or any other SCOTUS precedent said.

Evidence in support of the claim: Roe v. Wade treated “when life begins” as a question whose answer can only be “established” by court-recognized fact finders. Had Roe thought the issue a matter of law, it would not have said “the judiciary...is not in a position to speculate” about such a “difficult question” because “those trained in...medicine ...and theology are unable to [agree]”. Nor would Roe have inferred superior ability in fact-finders by describing “establishment” of this fact as a possibility despite the inability of any judge to “speculate”: “[Texas argues] that the ‘fetus' is a person. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the case [for legal abortion], of course, collapses, for the right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” Nor did SCOTUS in any later case say “when life [in fact] begins” no longer matters.

If the fact that we are people could be made irrelevant because “as a matter of law” “the judiciary is in no position to speculate” whether we are people “within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment”, (phrases from Roe) slavery would still be legal. Had the Amendment been only for those who are legally recognized as human, every deprivation of fundamental rights would be “constitutional” so long as a law or ruling questions whether its victims are “persons in the whole sense”.

“To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue. For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State [or its judges] to draw such ‘legal’ lines as it chooses.” Glona, 391 U.S. 73, 75 (1968)

Roe v. Wade equates the time an unborn child becomes “recognizably human” with the time the child becomes a “person”: “These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’”

The fact that Roe was uncertain whether babies are “persons” should never have driven prolifers to theorize that Roe created a distinction between “humans” and “persons”. Roe’s implication that first trimester babies are not “recognizably human” is fully accounted for by the deception of the Roe justices by illustrations cited in Roe from Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary. The illustrations had been exposed as fraud over a century before, along with most evolutionary nonsense. They redrew a human embryo to make it look like a pig embryo, rendering the human embryo not “recognizably human”.

See also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic...This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”.

Finding #2 responds to hundreds of lower court rulings that Roe made “when life [in fact] begins” irrelevant because Roe ruled “as a matter of law”. For example, “To me the United States Supreme Court made it unmistakably clear that the question of when life [in fact] begins needed no resolution by the judiciary as it was not a question of fact. ... I find it all irrelevant....” Doe v. Israel, 358 F. Supp. 1193, 1197, overturning Rhode Island’s 1973 law. This reasoning was adopted in hundreds of abortion prevention trials as the reason judges stopped letting juries hear the testimony of expert witnesses. Or the Necessity Defense, even though that was almost always the only defense. (When a judge rules on the only contested issue of a case and doesn’t allow the jury to even hear it, has the defendant still received his right to Trial By Jury?) “Every appellate court to date which has considered the issue has held that abortion clinic protesters, or ‘rescuers’ as they prefer to be called, are precluded, as a matter of law, from raising a necessity defense when charged with trespass.” City of Wichita v. Tilson, 253 Kan. 285, 292 (1993)

Doesn't Stare Decisis prevent overturning Roe?

Justice Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearings, discouraged prolifers by calling Roe "precedent upon precedent", as he discussed Stare Decisis, whose purpose is to keep America's laws from flip flopping back and forth with each new court ruling. But when Senator Whitehouse asked him about Citizens United, a precedent that Democrats hate, he explained how to overturn "precedent upon precedent".

Part of the court doctrine of Stare Decisis is the conditions for overturning a precedent. One ground for reversal is when the precedent has an "erroneous factual premise". The third Finding of Fact we propose identifies Roe's factual premise. Our documentation proves that it is erroneous.

3. An erroneous factual premise is a ground for overturning precedent, according to Stare Decisis criteria. Roe’s factual premise, proved erroneous by subsequent court-recognized evidence, was that the humanity of babies is unknowable to judges.

Evidence in support of the claim: “Are babies people or tumors?” is a question that can only be answered to the satisfaction of society by factual evidence, not rulings. Roe accordingly acknowledged that if the mistake of its factual premise is “established” (that the humanity of babies is unknowable to judges, leaving a woman’s right to manage her health without competition from anyone else’s rights), then “of course” abortion must be outlawed. Rulings have no jurisdiction over reality. Reality is the judge of rulings.

The fact that Stare Decisis criteria make “an erroneous factual premise” a ground for reversing a precedent is not only affirmed by legal dictionaries, but was acknowledged by Justice Kavanaugh during his confirmation, when questioned by Democrat Senator Whitehouse about the Citizens United precedent.

Even if Roe's basis for abortion is overturned, didn't Casey, 1992, replace Roe's basis anyway with women's "reliance interests"?

That is the argument of Clark Forsythe, head of AUL, Americans United for Life. Casey's theory that women have come to rely on abortion is a version of Stare Decisis. But Casey never mentioned evidence that babies are humans, making baby killing murder. Not even the conservative justices, Scalia, Thomas, mentioned the possibility of establishing that babies are in fact humans. Nor did any later SCOTUS precedent. So our 4th Finding of Fact claims:

4. No later case said it no longer matters “when (human) life begins” – abortion must remain legal even after judges know it kills human babies.

Evidence in support of the claim: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 945, 954 (1992) did not replace Roe’s constitutional basis for legal abortion — inability to tell “when life begins” — with Casey’s new basis: how much women had come to “rely” on legal murder. Casey did not say “when life begins” no longer matters, or that relying on abortion can justify keeping abortion legal after it is known that it kills people.

This finding responds to the widespread view articulated by Clark Forsythe of Americans United for Life that “The ‘collapse clause’ fallacy…completely overlooks the fact that the rationale of Roe was substantially changed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. The Court shifted from an historical rationale for Roe to a sociological rationale---the idea that women need abortion as a back-up to failed contraception. Blackmun’s rationale for Roe became irrelevant with the Court’s adoption of this ‘reliance interest’ rationale in Casey.” (This statement was given by Forsythe to Chuck Hurley, legal counsel for The Family Leader, 10/27/2010. Hurley had asked Forsythe to comment on the opportunity I present. For his complete statement and my response see www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/AULmissingOpportunity.pdf)

Didn't Webster, 1989, rule that a state personhood law can't overturn Roe?

That is a popular misreading of Webster. Webster did not deny the respect that courts have for legislative statements about facts. It was for other reasons that Missouri's magnificent personhood law failed to topple Roe.

The status of legislatures as court-recognized fact finders, when legislatures list Findings of Facts, is affirmed in our #5 Finding of Fact:

5. Legislatures are court-recognized fact finders whose Findings of Facts are taken seriously by courts. Courts are required to accept the explicit factual premise of Unborn Victims of Violence laws, especially when coupled with explicit “findings of facts” that unborn babies are fully human. They may not be required to accept the finding of a single state where another state might find differently, but the uncontradicted consensus of 38 states and Congress is legally conclusive.

Evidence in support of the claim: Courts accept legislative findings of facts that are not obviously irrational. Courts also conform their rulings to laws until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional. No court has invalidated state or federal Unborn Victims of Violence laws premised on unborn babies being fully human, despite many challenges. To do so would require a Court to positively affirm that human life does not begin until birth, which no legal authority has done, and for which no evidence exists.

“..the existence of facts supporting the legislative judgment is to be presumed...not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless in the light of the facts made known or generally assumed it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators....” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938).

State courts are thus bound to conform their rulings to state laws, while federal courts are thus bound to conform their rulings to federal laws. Congress established in 2004, in federal law, that: ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). This fact, applied by the 14th Amendment, requires all states to outlaw abortion.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (492 U.S. 490, 506 did not say a single state’s personhood law has no legal power to overturn Roe, but the opposite. Webster said that without penalties, (Missouri’s personhood law promised to obey Roe) a state personhood law can’t generate a case. But as evidence in a case, it could be strong enough to end legal abortion. “It will be time enough for federal courts to address the meaning of the [Personhood law] should it be applied to restrict the activities of [the abortionists], in some concrete way….there will be time enough to reexamine Roe, and to do so carefully... When the constitutional invalidity of a State’s abortion statute actually turns upon the constitutional validity of Roe”, Concurrence by O’Conner, Id. at 526. If the finding of a single state could be strong enough to end legal abortion, the uncontradicted consensus of 38 states is strong enough.

Doesn't the 14th Amendment give courts jurisdiction when states trample fundamental rights? Doesn't that authorize courts to define fundamental rights?

Yes, the 14th Amendment, whose initial focus was slavery in southern states, gives courts jurisdiction to stop states from trampling fundamental rights. And yes, courts have taken this as jurisdiction to define fundamental rights. The example before us is a "fundamental right" to abortion, a right without precedent in the Constitution, in law, or even in court precedents, but a right newly defined in 1973 by the Supreme Court.

But why would the authors of the 14th Amendment give that authority to courts? Wasn't it a court ruling, Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857, that partly necessitated the Civil War? Why would Congress entrust the definition of rights to the same slavery-loving judges? Three of the seven Democrats who voted against Scott were still on the bench! (Samuel Nelson, Robert Cooper Grier, James Moore Wayne) Did they not see that entrusting the right to freedom to slavery-loving judges could overturn the entire Civil War?

Our 6th Finding of Fact states who, according to the 14th Amendment, has the final say to define Fundamental Rights:

6. The 14th Amendment authorizes Congress, not courts, to define the “fundamental rights” which must have “equal protection of the laws”.

Evidence in support of the claim: The 14th Amendment is Roe’s foundation for legalizing abortion. (“...the word ‘person,’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”) That right, defended as “privacy”, may seem logical to those unable to tell if it exists at the expense of the lives of other human beings. (“...when life begins[?]...the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is unable to speculate....”) But Roe rightly acknowledges that when we can tell, legal abortion must end.

Congress affirms, through 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), that now we can tell.

Now, legal abortion must end.

Congress, not courts, has explicit 14th Amendment authority to “enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of” the Amendment. (Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.) That necessarily encompasses the authority to establish the facts that are the basis for evaluating when “equal protection of the laws” needs to be “enforced”. It gives Congress greater authority than courts to certify a discrete [distinct] class [category] of people whose enumerated rights are violated.

The right to life is an “enumerated right”. [It is a right specified in the Constitution.] The 5th Amendment says “No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law...” The right to “privacy” is a “penumbral right” according to Roe. (“...personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras.” - Roe) An enumerated right must be protected even at the expense of an alleged penumbral right, not vice versa.

Don't "life of the mother" exceptions, and exceptions from prosecution for mothers who kill their babies, support Roe's argument that “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense”?

Even if they do, courts don't limit Fundamental Rights to those whose rights are recognized in laws! Even if a law states that a group of people do not merit equal rights because they are not fully human as a matter of law, courts will overturn the law when evidence shows the people are in fact fully human.

Roe didn't look to laws to learn if babies are in fact people, as if laws can dictate facts. What is relevant is whether babies are in fact humans. Roe sought, in laws, implications whether the lawmakers, who are court-recognized finders of facts, believed babies are human from conception. The fact that Roe did a terrible job of perceiving the intentions of ancient laws only points to another "erroneous factual premise" upon which Roe was based, a ground of reversing precedent according to Stare Decisis principles.

Our 7th Finding of Facts touches on the absurdity of questioning the full humanity of those whom our laws - or precedents - fail to equally protect.

7. Evidence of Life is not disproved by an “exception...for the purpose of saving the life of the mother” and/or by not charging the mother with being a “principal or an accomplice” to murder, as Roe’s footnote 54 is interpreted. Nor is paragraph (d) of 18 U.S.C. 1841, which establishes the fact that babies “at all stages of gestation” are “members of the species homo sapiens” negated by paragraph (c) which exempts elective abortions from its penalties. The failure of law to protect everyone equally does not prove that some categories of people don't merit equal protection of the laws.

Evidence in support of the claim: Footnote 54 was part of a 65 page search for some explicit “personhood” statement in law; it was alleged that there was none. Had there been found explicit statements, that would have satisfied the Court, so far as we can determine from reading Roe.

Although the ideal of law is equal protection of all humans, “innocent until proved guilty” illustrates the inability of courts to equally protect everyone, without that inability proving that not all crime victims are human!

A legal reason for stiffer penalties for abortionists than for moms is (1) to get moms to testify against abortionists, and (2) the greater ease for juries of imputing culpability to adult doctors than to mothers suffering varying degrees of youth, deception (by culture, schools, pastors, and judges) and pressure (by family and fathers). (See this principle in Luke 12:47-48.) A legal reason for a “life of the mother” exception is that while we are inspired by people who give their lives for others, we can’t require them to by law. (Deuteronomy 20:8 illustrates how God calls us all to be heroes, but does not force anyone by law; cowards may retreat from risk without penalty.) Even our Good Samaritan laws, requiring people at accident scenes to help, are sparse and inconsistent.

It would be hypocritical to charge aborting moms with being accessories to murder, without first charging judges. The degree to which laws fail to give “equal protection” to all humans is no evidence of the degree to which people are not humans. Such a legal theory is absurd, unknown outside Footnote 54, and cannot be taken seriously.

18 USC 1841 (enacted in 2004) penalizes killing an unborn child by beating or killing its mother, but clause (c) does not "permit" prosecution of abortions approved by mothers.

The law says that: ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”. 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). This statement of fact, with clause 5 of the 14th Amendment, requires all states to outlaw abortion.

This fact is not diminished by clause (c) which does not “permit [authorize] the prosecution of any person for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…” A law not yet in step with facts does not block future lawmakers from correcting deficiencies, and states don’t need Congress’ “permission” to obey the Constitution.

“The...equal protection clause...does not compel...Legislatures to prohibit all like evils, or none. A Legislature may hit at an abuse which it has found, even though it has failed to strike at another.” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 151 (1938).

An Alabama amicus brief points out the main reason for inconsistency about Life: “Some portions of Alabama law still do not fully treat the unborn as persons....But each of those laws was passed [under duress] after Roe was decided. Thus, ...any fault for failing to treat the unborn fully as persons...should fall at the feet of the United States Supreme Court.” http://48w41x2exf1mzi1dezjx6mll5.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Alabama-Pro-Life-Organizations-Amicus-Brief-West-Alabama-Womens-Center-v.-Miller-1.pdf

The belief that clause (c) of 18 U.S.C. 1841 robs clause (d) of any power to undermine Roe was held by prolife leaders and Republican Congressmen who said “By its express terms, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not…in any way affect nor alter, the ability of a woman to have an abortion.” - House Judiciary Cmte, 2/11/2004 www.nrIc.org/uploads/unbornvictims/UVVAHJC report2004.pcif

They have had no effect on abortion's legality, because no state has cited them to say what Roe said once said would end abortion's legality. It is a staple of judicial ethics that judges are not supposed to introduce evidence and reasoning of their own which was not presented by either party to the case.

Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. 4(A)(4) ,,, a judge should not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications or consider other communications concerning a pending or impending matter that are made outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers. Judges may consider only that “common knowledge” which is undisputed.

Can you seriously equate a microscopic cluster of a few cells with a "person in the whole sense"?

9. Human life isn’t just physical. “Consciousness”, possessed by our “souls”, is our name for what distinguishes humans from animals. Although our physical development is progressive, souls have no known pre-conscious stage. “Infused with a soul” is part of the definition of “person”, according to Roe.

Argument and precedent in support of this claim: Part of Roe's definition of “person” was “infused with a soul”. Roe thus affirms the belief of most of society, a belief demanded by the common knowledge that humans are distinguished from animals by consciousness which features a capacity for (1) self awareness, (2) choice between good and evil – to behave either as an angel or as a demon, and (3) love: to choose to sacrifice one’s interests for another. John 15:13. These differences justify legal protection of humans beyond protections of animals. They are not explained by any known physical process.

Since “infused with a soul” is not just Roe’s definition but is commonly held, and a “soul” without consciousness has never been theorized and can’t be imagined, the implicit consensus of fact finders is that abortion kills babies with conscious souls.

Souls have no known pre-conscious stage. The lack of any physical explanation for a conscious soul rules out any reason to infer immaturity of consciousness from physical immaturity, and is consistent with the report in Luke 1 that a baby at 6 months heard a righteous voice [and/or felt the righteous Presence of God] and responded with joy, a response not everybody chooses, indicating a preference for good over evil: a choice.

Even considering the body only, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”. Without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. No baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary.

The failure of some to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing - and not just dangerous for babies, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of distinct groups of born persons.

Didn't Roe say laws protecting the unborn were for their parents' interests, without implying that the unborn are human with interests of their own?

Yes. In "the absence of legislative history", meaning no "Findings of Facts" in which lawmakers explicitly declare the factual basis of their laws, Roe romped freely in a playground of speculation. Roe eagerly assumed the intended beneficiary of these laws were not the unborn babies explicitly named in these laws, but others: parents.

Roe said when a relative dies and leaves an unborn child an inheritance before he is born and whose interests are even defended in court by a lawyer, that doesn’t prove the framers believed the unborn heir is a “person”. Maybe the framers were thinking only of the interests of the parents.

The same with Unborn Victims of Violence laws. Just because state laws prosecute as murder an injury to a pregnant mother that kills her baby, that doesn’t prove the framers believe the unborn are humans with human rights. Maybe the framers were only thinking of the interests of the mother.

(Hmm. But when someone burns down the same mother’s house, her strong interests in her house don’t cause the arsonist to be charged with murder. Usually “murder” is charged only when a human being is killed.)

The closest Roe presented as evidence was century-old court cases which hinged on the indirect effect of the laws on parents' interests: "The few state courts called upon to interpret their laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did focus on the State's interest in protecting the woman's health rather than in preserving the embryo and fetus." (The footnote was to an 1858 case.)

Here is how Roe speculated: "In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem."

The recognition of heartbeats and brain wives as evidence of life can't be so easily dismissed. Laws relating to those measures of human Life are for the benefit of the people with heartbeats and brain waves, not for anyone else. Medical law involves no parents or anyone else who can be imagined the real reason for law instead of the people named in the law. Medical law fully recognizes as living humans anyone with a heartbeat, whether or not parents or anyone else cares. Fetal heartbeats were reported as early as the 1600's by Marsac and Killian. Our 9th Finding of Facts makes this point:

9. Detectable heartbeats and brain waves are legally recognizable evidence of Life. Roe speculated that unborn victims of violence, and unborn heirs represented in court by lawyers, may have legal favor not for their own sakes but for the sake of their parents’ interests. But medical law protects anyone with a heartbeat, for no one else's interest but his own as a living human being.

What is most eye-opening about Roe's logic is its obsession, even in the face of apparently zero direct evidence, with guessing whether lawmakers centuries ago believed the unborn are fully human. Which leads us to our next proposed Finding of Facts.

f

Yes, but before we look at exactly what Roe said, and what Roe overlooked that rules out the assumption Roe made, let's consider why Roe was so interested in guessing the motivation behind ancient laws in the first place.

Roe discussed whether "a purpose of these laws...was to protect prenatal life." Or whether "most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman....There is some scholarly support for this view of original purpose." The fact that penalties increased at "quickening" (when a baby's kicks can be felt) "impliedly repudiates the theory that life begins at conception." Roe concludes these speculations by saying these questions are the whole substance of Roe: "It is with these interests, and the weight to be attached to them, that this case is concerned."

So why would Roe spend so much time analyzing old laws? Roe's lack of respect for the laws themselves is proved by throwing them all out to make way for its new theory that abortion is a fundamental right. So why, then? What was the point of Roe's review?

In particular, why was Roe so obsessed with guessing, from what laws protected, what the lawmakers believed about the human-ness of the unborn?

There can be only one explanation: courts regard lawmakers as Finders of Facts. Roe regarded "when life begins" as a fact question: if babies are humans, then killing them is murder, and murder can never be a fundamental right. Had Roe concluded that lawmakers over the centuries have all recognized the unborn as in fact fully human, so that "the necessary consequence [of abortion] was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection", "we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion".

Now to the objection. Roe said laws protecting the unborn were for their parents' interests, without implying that the unborn are human with interests of their own, in two areas of law: probate, when a relative died and left them an inheritance before they were born; and Unborn Victims of Violence law, when they were injured or killed by injuries to their mothers.

Our 8th Finding of Facts points to this evidence:

But indeed, prior to Roe, the unborn were given legal rights both But Roe questioned whether those laws were for the sake of the unborn!

"Who else did Roe think they were for?" you ask. "Why, for the sake of the parents", Roe said. To assume they were for the sake of the unborn would imply that the lawmakers regarded the unborn as in fact human. Roe didn't want to assume such a Christian idea.

Roe reported no Findings of Facts which would have settled the legislative intent. Since Roe, 38 states penalize harm to the unborn as if the harm were done to an adult; 28 of those states have explicit findings of facts asserting that human life begins by conception.

Here is how Roe explained its theory:

"In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. [This point was noted late in Webster, 1989.] Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

The recognition of heartbeats and brain wives as evidence of life can't be so easily dismissed. Laws relating to those measures are for the benefit of the people with heartbeats and brain waves, not for anyone else.

Heartbeats and brain waves are evidence that a person has not yet died, throughout state and federal law. Reason demands they be accepted as evidence that what is growing in a human womb is a living person, although obviously that isn’t when lives begin.

Lawmakers' Objections

Even if courts let us completely outlaw abortion, the public won't

After courts of law step out of the way because the legal evidence that babies are humans is irrefutable, and the Court of Public Opinion is softened by popular as well as legal recognition of babies as fully human and of abortion as legally recognizable as murder, it will not only be possible to outlaw abortion: it will be politically impossible for lawmakers to settle for weak restrictions of abortion.

The subtitle of my book, "How States Can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts", claims "Court-recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. A strategy for presenting that evidence in court and forcing courts to address it. A vision of victory both in courts of law and in the “court of public opinion”: legal arguments that are irresistible not only to judges, but to the public. Not just maybe, but for certain. Not just after another Supreme Court Justice dies, or a constitutional amendment is passed, and not just in a few states, but in every state, in a year or two of whenever prolifers act."

From my book: The Court of Public Opinion

You may ask, how can juries settle “when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’”?

That is how Roe defines “person”. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 133 (1973). Indeed, if a human baby lacks a “soul”, the baby lacks what distinguishes a human from an animal. But how can the time a soul is infused into a human body be determined by a jury, or by expert witnesses, or by state legislatures, or by Congress, or by individual judges?

The consensus of court-recognized fact finders is overwhelming evidence in courts of law. It is hard to imagine how any judge could squarely address the unopposed consensus of court-recognized fact finders that abortion kills fully human beings, and keep abortion legal. But what about “we the people” - the “judges” in the Court of Public Opinion? How can court-recognized fact finders be as persuasive in the Court of Public Opinion as in Courts of Law? Who are juries, experts, legislatures, or judges, to really know such a thing? Victory in courts of law, without victory in the Court of Public Opinion, could spark violence, or at least a displacement of legal abortion with “back alley” abortions. What do medical doctors, geneticists, or psychiatrists know about souls? If they lack expertise about souls, can they acquire expertise about “persons” by becoming certified as “expert witnesses” in court? If they can’t know, can juries and legislatures supply that information?

Yes, fortunately. The vision of this book is total victory over abortion in courts of law that will simultaneously ignite victory in “the Court of Public Opinion”. The goal is evidence so simple, persuasive, and self evident that the public will not merely tolerate the outlawing of abortion, but will shudder at its very memory, as our ancestors finally came to regard slavery – though without war, violence, or the mere displacement of legal abortion with “back alley” abortions. The goal is a challenge to legal abortion irresistible to the public and to judges.

Even though juries, judges, expert witnesses, and legislatures are all human with imperfect knowledge and imperfect commitment to truth which creates gaps between “legally recognizable” and “true”.

Juries. The reason court-recognized juries, expert witnesses, and legislatures can “establish” these truths with the kind of authority acceptable to whole societies is that unlike public opinion surveys or petitions, which are normally not admissible evidence of facts in court, we test jurors for impartiality and educate them with the most qualified expert witnesses we can find. Juries contribute impartiality to the search for Truth. Unfortunately states have not, so far, cited the consensus of juries in abortion prevention trials, in which judges let juries know about the Necessity Defense, and juries acquitted because the defendants were saving lives. This is a powerful resource which prolifers need to use.

Expert witnesses. The reason expert witnesses testifying in court records are more persuasive to whole societies than experts outside court is that in court, (1) the very top experts that the litigants can afford are called, and (2) those experts are scrutinized by the top experts called to refute the opposing side.

That is a standard that news reporters make a show of meeting, but reporters will (1) talk to a source for an hour and select maybe two sentences for a quote, (2) take the quote as far out of context as necessary to suit the prejudices of the reporter, (3) get the quote wrong, (4) make no public record available of all that was said so readers can double check the accuracy of the report, and (5) cram all that into 300-1,000 words. Judges at least write a summary of the proceedings, reporting the positions of both sides, in more detail than news reports. Roe was 65 pages. And anyone can get a transcript of the proceedings, and copies of the legal briefs filed, if they are rich enough. At least records exist.

The value of expert witnesses in abortion prevention trials who testified that fully human life begins from the first minute is that they were never, or at least virtually never refuted. Which is breathtaking considering that Planned Barrenhood invests billions in legally attacking prolifers, demonstrating their extremely high motivation to refute prolifers in court, and yet the closest they came to refuting the expert witnesses was to say that Life is “irrelevant”. In normal trials, if a litigant argues that the opposing evidence is irrelevant, he will also bring in contrary evidence to show the opposing evidence is also wrong, in case the judge doesn’t agree that it it is irrelevant. But in abortion trials, that apparently never happened. No witness, in thousands of trials, was ever brought forward to testify that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. The fact was dismissed as irrelevant, but the accuracy of the fact was for all practical purposes conceded, being left unchallenged.

Unfortunately prolife litigants have not cited this overwhelming evidence in court. Some litigants cite the expertise of new authorities that have not yet been tested in court, but not the tested evidence. This is a powerful resource that prolifers should use. Legislatures. Societies respect the findings of their legislatures as much as any other authority because all the lawmakers are there with the support of a majority of voters, and to remain there, they suffer the bombardment of opinions and information that would make the average citizen cry. And even once there, they are scrutinized by other lawmakers who continually look for ways to be contrary. They are elected from jury “pools”, and expert witnesses are routinely clamoring to give them information for free. They pay the salaries of judges, and have the power – seldom exercised, but they have it – to impeach judges who stray too far from their duties. When they impeach judges, they then hold trials just like courts do; except that the judges are senators and the defendants are judges.

So when legislatures agree on facts, their verdict is as persuasive and acceptable to society as any authority.

It is therefore for good reason that these fact-finding authorities are recognized by courts and are persuasive in the Court of Public Opinion, even though not many think about these details. Still, these points should be made.

The influence of the Bible. Even Roe v. Wade acknowledged the authority of religion in determining “when [protectable] life begins”. (“When those trained in...theology are unable to arrive at any consensus....(how are judges supposed to figure it out?)”)] Roe even quoted a Bible verse: Exodus 21:22, which, properly interpreted, affirms that fully human life begins at fertilization, but which has also been improperly interpreted.

SCOTUS’ claim that legal abortion has the support of many theologians, and of the Bible, though without citing a single modern Christian theologian, or more than one verse of the Bible and that without discussion, certainly “opens the door”, as lawyers say, to making Bible discussion a part of the defense. The example legal brief in this book offers such a discussion, although it is tucked away in “Appendix E: Scriptures SCOTUS must address before saying Christianity supports abortion.”

The Bible tells us what science cannot, about human souls. It is the only reason there are prolifers, even though prolifers rarely state, publicly, the real reason they are prolife: the Scriptures they learned from rare sermons or from their own reading. But many in this generation hate God and His Word. For them, courts, and the fact-finders recognized by courts, will be the highest authority they are likely to accept. For them, it will make an impression that all American legal authorities who have taken a position have ruled that fully human life begins at minute one, and no court-recognized authority has said it begins any later.

The Bible has contributed indirectly to this result. Although our society prides itself in being called “secular”, the correlation of our freedoms with Biblical principles, compared with the correlation of tyranny abroad with religions and atheism abroad, make it pretty clear that our nation is a lot more “Christian” than it is Communist, Hindu, or Moslem, for example.

Besides that, the fact finders who have ruled for Life are often Christians, personally, which shapes their respect for infant life when they function as fact finders. Society accepts the fact that a variety of world views contribute to society’s findings. And on one side of the balance is the certainty of Christians; on the other, the strongest opposition is “we don’t know.”

A full presentation of all the evidence can only bring glory to God, Who said as much centuries ago.

The power of God is not limited to reporting facts correctly and persuasively even to unbelievers. Nor is He glorified only by being proved correct by all the evidence that man can assemble.

The love required to want to rescue others, and the faith to believe we can, only God can supply in the measure we need. No other religion makes promises about what He will help us accomplish, like God does.

Jesus told us that God has made a way to topple the tallest mountain of evil. Jesus said even mountains will fall if we have enough faith to not give up, so undoubtedly God has made a way for legal abortion to fall, too.

The only thing you may legitimately question is whether I have found it. You many not legitimately assume that I have not, as proved by the “impossibility” of that goal, without doubting God.

Nor may you legitimately presume that I have not, as indicated by how unlikely a messenger of God’s answer to your prayers I am, because if you read the Bible you know God typically gives His blessings through the unlikeliest of messengers, in order to teach us to value even His “least”.

Nor may you expect to hear God’s answer to your prayers if you limit your attention to only a handful of top experts, because God says it is through a “multitude of counsellors” that we reach our goals – that our “purposes are established”, Proverbs 15:22.

“But abortion is legal!” The standard defense of legal abortion given in response to pictures of what abortion does or evidence of who abortion kills is “But abortion is legal”. This argument is trusted to trump the opinions of legislatures, doctors, biologists, and the Bible.

This apology will evaporate as courts agree with legislatures that babies are living, fully human beings whose lives must be protected by outlawing their murders.

Even before courts agree, this apology will be weakened as this evidence survives the public scrutiny it will receive as it progresses through a legislature. As the public realizes, even before prolifers get this evidence before courts, that abortion is already legally recognizable as murder, with which courts will most certainly agree if they squarely address the evidence, public confidence that “abortion is legal” will further erode.

Most Americans, Democrats as well as Republicans, would never deliberately support murder. Even Roe v. Wade confessed: “...we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion...if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.”

Just as the major argument for legal abortion in courts of law is “we don’t know if it is a human”, the major argument in the Court of Public Opinion is “every child a wanted child”, splattered all over billboards in the past by Planned Barrenhood.

“How cruel it would be to make parents raise a child they don’t love, and will abuse. They could adopt, but most won’t. It is compassionate to spare a child from that.” If women are spared the burden of “unwanted” children, the argument goes, they will be free to pursue education and economic opportunities and welcome “wanted” children only when they are stable enough to support them. “Unwanted” children grow up in loveless, broken homes and become a menace to society. “Wanted” children enjoy life and contribute to society.

Love is a choice, too. The choice not to love is the root cause of all evils. We enable that choice at our peril. If a mother can’t love her very own baby, how can she ever hope to love her husband, or any man, who is far less innocent, less cute, and much harder to shut up by plopping milk in his mouth?

Without love, how can families survive? The obvious answer: they don’t. They are crumbling all around us.

Without love, even sex is cruel. To get it, couples lie to each other to overstate how “true” their love is, and to understate their STD’s.

“Oh, don’t worry about killing those babies. God has plans for all of them. Wonderful plans. They will be OK. They will go right to Heaven.” An abortionist once offered up that rationale on the Jerry Springer show.

That’s like the B’hagavad Gita, the latest Hindu holy book, written about 500 AD. General Arjuna dreads the civil war battle of the next day; many of his own relatives are on the other side. Lord Krishna tells him, “Oh, don’t worry about killing them. You’ll only be killing bodies, and freeing their souls to progress forward. Besides, you were born to kill – born a warrior. It is your dharma, your duty. So go out there and see how much blood you can spill!”

Yes, God still has plans for babies. And judgments against all who love evil. Yes, I care for the souls of unborn babies. I am concerned for the souls of American voters.

It will be hard for these legal arguments to be ignored once they are taken seriously enough to be introduced in bills. Before that point, news reporters who know about the opportunity can ignore it and avoid drawing attention to it.

There are several deadlines bills must meet to become law, in many states. The survival of “our” bill by each deadline, called a “funnel” date, is potentially the occasion of another news story, more public discussion, and more education. Historically reporters let even the least promising prolife bill “have it with both barrels” (of ink). Good! IF the defense is solid, and prolifers know it.

A “Straw Man” that the public must watch for.

A lot of public education is necessary because when “our” law is “tested” in court, judges will try the “straw man” approach of misprepresenting our law as something much easier to ridicule. Judges will try very hard to get away with something like:

To allow the personal, ethical, moral, or religious beliefs of a [state], no matter how sincere or well-intended, as a justification for...preventing a law-abiding citizen from exercising her legal and constitutional rights would not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy. City of Wichita vs. Tilson, 855 P.2d 911 (Kan. 1993)

Do you see the misrepresentation? “Our” legal argument has nothing to do with religion, although Roe did base its alleged inability to “speculate” about “when life begins” on the alleged inability of preachers to agree, which theoretically “opens the interesting door” explored in Appendix E, beginning on page 80.

Other than that footnote-level point, “our” argument is based on American law, on court-recognized finders of facts, on legally recognized facts, and on Roe v. Wade itself.

So was Elizabeth Tilson’s defense in 1993. She even flew in the world’s top geneticist from France to testify about “when life begins”. District Judge Paul Clark, summarizing the defense and ruling in her favor, did not indicate religion was any part of the defense. (See excerpts in Appendix H, p. 145.) Yet the Kansas Court dismissed all that world-class scientific evidence as a “personal religious belief” of some dowdy no-account religious kook housewife who expects law to bow to her superstitions.

This is not an isolated “straw man” misconstruction of a defense. Appellate courts did it routinely. Appendix F in Part 2 gives examples. We can expect it will be done again. The public needs to be prepared to recognize such evasions for what they are, and to be ready to hold judges accountable who rule lawlessly, in violation of the Constitution, and even in violation of Roe v. Wade.

To the extent the public is prepared to recognize a lawless ruling, and to be ready to support measures to hold judges accountable, it is unlikely that any judge will rule lawlessly! That very public readiness to act, without the necessity of public action, will surely be enough political pressure on judges to make them squarely address “our” legal argument, and formally acknowledge the evidence which ends abortion’s legality.

Therefore, an irrefutable legal argument, and enough public education to recognize when it is not squarely addressed, should be enough to court-proof “our” law against abortion.

Outlawing abortion isn't reality. We can only reduce them

Response: It is an untested theory that outlawing abortion “isn’t reality”, because no state so far has presented even a fraction of the overwhelming, unanimous, court-recognized evidence in support of triggering Roe’s “collapse” clause, that I urge states to cite in court.

When a prosecutor has 1,000 witnesses to a murder but calls only one, we might expect that a conviction won’t be reality. So why do states cite only one or two court-recognized fact finders who have established that babies are people? (Past "personhood" laws have cited only the finding of their own legislature. Alabama in 2019 cited that plus a few medical authorities within Alabama's borders.) Shouldn’t a conviction of abortion as murder be more "reality" if all the court-recognized evidence were presented in court? The 38 legislatures in their "unborn victims of violence" laws, Congress in 18 USC 1841(d), dozens of juries in abortion prevention trials acquitting because lives were saved, and unrefuted expert witnesses in thousands of such trials? Are you in favor of getting all that evidence in court? May we send you information about that?

True, the Supreme Court says no state law can be an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to kill. But that is only in a vacuum of state-submitted evidence that babies are people. SCOTUS has NEVER withdrawn Roe’s holding that such evidence, once “established”, requires ALL states to outlaw abortion.

Although lower courts say that evidence is irrelevant because Roe made babies non-“persons” “as a matter of law”, that is not merely absurd: it is demonstrably the opposite of what SCOTUS said.

I propose a simple, powerful way to make critical points like that in a bill’s “findings of facts”, at my online post of what I mailed you, which is also how my book begins. See: A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life.

It explains that when the defense of a law is that it is NOT a “substantial” restriction (“undue burden”) of abortion, (that was Martin Cannon’s defense of Iowa’s Heartbeat law) then whether it IS a substantial restriction of abortion becomes the issue in court. When that is the issue in court, evidence of Life isn’t even relevant.

Didn't Roe positively rule that babies are not persons?

Response: Did Roe indeed affirm that babies are NOT "persons"?

This quote explicitly denies that SCOTUS took any position on "when life begins":

“When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Roe v. Wade, p. 159 (In other words, "when life begins" is treated as a fact question concerning which "expert witnesses" in medicine and theology are more expert than SCOTUS, not a "matter of law" concerning which SCOTUS is the world's expert.)

Probably the closest Roe came to sounding like a ruling that baby humans are not "persons" was this quote on P. 12 of my book:

Roe said “the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 (1973). This was Roe’s rationale for presuming that legislatures did not regard the unborn as in fact “recognizably human”, Roe, p. 133. And because legislatures, in Roe’s view, did not treat the unborn as fully human, SCOTUS was “in no position to speculate” whether they are.

Roe did NOT say lack of protection by law was, and it obviously is not, evidence that one is not in fact human or that one has no constitutionally protected “right to life”.

Roe did NOT say there are humans who are not "persons".

P. XVI: Roe v. Wade equates the time an unborn child becomes “recognizably human” with the time the child becomes a “person”: “These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’” 410 U.S. 113, 133(1973)

Had the 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” been only for those who are legally recognized as human, we could still have slavery simply by declining to legally recognize a minority as fully human. All pro-slavery judges would need to do would be to rule that blacks are only 3/5 human according to the Constitution. Or that immigrants aren’t treated by our laws as “persons in the whole sense” when they are prosecuted for what their parents did with them, bringing them here as babies, so we can enslave them.

It is the fact that unborn babies are living human children that makes killing them murder, not what any law says about it, or even what the Constitution says about it. That’s what makes the consensus of court-recognized fact finders a stronger legal reason to end legal abortion than a Life Amendment. Which makes it insane for prolifers to not even mention this legally recognizable evidence in each and every prolife case!

The quibble of Roe was not whether babies are “persons” or merely “humans”, but whether very young babies depicted in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary as indistinguishable from pig fetuses are “recognizably human”. (See p. 166.)

Nothing will hold much muster until we resolve the state supreme court finding a fundamental right to an abortion

Response: Many are treating the ICC as such a cure-all that there is no reason to even be aware of any other strategy - no reason to study any other plan to see if it really is a gift of God offering more than we had dared hope!

Can ANY strategy be THAT good?!

Were I in office I would vote for the Amendment. But both plans can be worked on together. The Amendment needn’t be passed before outlawing abortion. [See next section for more reasoning.]

Surely you do not prefer a strategy that takes 2-10 years over one that takes one; or one that can be overturned by a judge over one whose evidence no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal; or one that addresses only the state obstacle over one that also will remove the Supreme Court obstacle; or one that only offers to facilitate future restrictions that are not an “undue burden” on abortion over a present law against all abortions. Surely you say “nothing else will hold much muster” only because you have not yet considered the power of the consensus of every category of court-recognized finders of facts.

Your plan might work where courts have not made abortion a fundamental right. Not in this state.

Not only that, but it doesn't matter that state courts are subject to the U.S. Supreme Court; they will do whatever they want anyway. They don't respect any other legal authority - why should they respect the Supreme Court?

Response: The same evidence which no federal judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal, will also force any judge in any state, with or without a "fundamental right to abortion" precedent, to acknowledge the "collapse" of abortion's legality. Let me explain. It is not necessary, although it wouldn't hurt, to first have a "no right to abortion" state constitutional amendment.

State courts really are subject to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is rebellious enough to declare themselves the masters of legislatures. This they dare to do by alleged authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. Without that, they don't have sufficient cultural capital to declare themselves supreme over legislatures AND SCotUS. (Supreme Court of the United States.) Besides that, any judge's dislike of being overturned by a higher court is as palpable as any attorney's dislike of being beaten in court by a non-lawyer defending himself.

Roe v. Wade's holding, that once we find out babies are people then "of course" legal abortion must "collapse", is just as binding precedent as its holding that until we find that out, a woman's right to manage her own health is unmitigated by any right of any baby to live.

But that ruthlessly repeated "collapse" clause invokes a greater authority than SCotUS itself. By saying "of course", Roe concedes that even if SCotUS had never said it, it would still be true, and obviously so. Once some state finally places before courts all of the court-recognized evidence that babies are people, establishing conclusively that abortion is not just murder but is legally recognizable as murder, no court will be able to keep it legal without undermining its own reason to exist.

From page 37, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts":

As ignorance passes, so must abortion. Abortion’s legality and aura of “constitutional protection” can continue only in the absence of this “establishment” – only as long as uncertainty is alleged whether the unborn babies of human mothers are humans.

Roe’s “of course” acknowledges that it is obvious that abortion’s legality cannot survive knowing it is murder. That is, alleged ignorance cannot rationally or legally be made an obstacle to letting fact finders “establish” this fact. If there is evidence, it must be heard. Because it is unthinkable that we would knowingly want the blood of innocent human lives on our hands. So if the babies of human mothers turn out to be humans, we need to protect them.

Many abortion supporters hope, and prolifers fear, that even after our nation’s laws and courts officially acknowledge that abortion is the legal equivalent of murder – that the babies abortion kills are humans/persons, it will be possible, even likely, for other rationales to replace Roe’s rationale – Roe’s official ignorance about “when life begins”.

Appendix G deals with some of them inside and outside case law and shows this is simply impossible. It is just as obvious today as when Roe’s “collapse” clause began with “of course”, that SCOTUS can’t decide who lives and dies as a question so exclusively of law as to render irrelevant whether SCOTUS’ rulings protect murder.

The 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” is for all who are in fact humans/persons. Had it been only for those who are legally recognized as human, we could still have slavery simply by declining to legally recognize a discrete class of people as fully human.

From page 66:

Possibly what motivated the Roe justices to say they found it relevant to consult theologians, is that a relevant, practical problem is created for courts by the conflict between Imago Deo and logic alone.

Faith looks at this virtually unrestrained killing of lives whose humanity logic struggles to grasp, and sees genocide. It sees the blood of 60 million slain running down the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. This dangerously erodes public confidence in American justice. The only reason "we the people" created courts was to prosecute crime. Murder is the ultimate crime, and genocide is the ultimate murder. To the extent judges promote genocide, and especially after it becomes clear that is what is done, judges undermine the reason for their existence.

Fortunately the American legal system is able to balance doubt and faith and allow America to move forward, although no one is happy that it takes so long.

People debate facts and faith. Their debate spills into courts. America's court-recognized fact finders rule. As the facts become clearer to everybody, there is a point of decision whether to ignore reality or accept and accommodate it. The process of legal recognition through fact finders is for a nation like the conscience is for an individual, from which courts stray at peril to their own credibility.

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created with unalienable rights...life...."

The "self evident" status of our fundamental "rights" establishes the role of popular understanding in legal reasoning. Rights are the Gift of God, our Declaration says. But in few nations during few centuries have they had the support of popular understanding. Popular understanding of our rights, which can exist only to the extent of reverence for Imago Deo, acts as a nation's acceptance of God's Gift. Popular understanding is not to be ignored. Not to be dismissed as irrelevant. Without it, no rights are safe.

No Roe backup is possible. Several wannabe replacement rationales wait in the wings to take Roe’s place when it “collapses”. 12 of them are addressed in Appendix G. None of them can survive “establishment” that all unborn babies of humans are humans/persons.

“Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.” – Roe v. Wade at 159.

In oral arguments in Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart asked Sarah Weddington “If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?” Weddington audibly laughed and acknowledged “I would have a very difficult case.” Stewart pursued, “This would be the equivalent to after the child was born...if the mother thought it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?” Weddington answered, “That’s correct.”

This exchange is what presumably provoked Justice Blackmun to write “[If the] suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

....There is only one skeletal sustaining principle...in Roe, to which a succession of rationales may attach in turn: alleged uncertainty whether the unborn babies of humans are human.

This alleged uncertainty is articulated in Roe’s “collapse” clause where it is explicitly identified as Roe’s sustaining principle, in the sense that without it, Roe’s holding cannot stand.

This uncertainty as a matter of law cannot still seriously be alleged. Granting that the unborn babies of humans are humans, making their killing the legal equivalent of murder, will this Court still insist their murder is some kind of “private and personal right”, a “sacred choice” with which courts and lawmakers ought not interfere? Once this “outer shell” of alleged uncertainty who is human “collapses”, no rationale can stand.

Judges do what they want. I don't have to see your argument or evidence to know it isn't strong enough. They rule against God! They will rule against you.

This is an argument against ever going to court about anything. Certainly 1 Corinthians 6 describes courts as places to avoid. Yet some of Jesus' profoundest teachings were made in court. Especially considering that several times when the Pharisees accused him, the charges were capital offenses, and were leveled in places where execution by stoning would have been promptly carried out had He not defended Himself well.

The Christian religion, unlike any other religion, teaches that Truth has great power to shine light in darkness and heal evil. So for 47 years, prolifers by the tens of thousands, besides many whole state legislatures, have faithfully sown Truth about aborticide as clearly as they knew how, with the result that court-recognized evidence has accumulated to a quite irrefutable level. It really is time to cite the evidence.

What makes little sense is to continue legislative initiatives with little hope of any significant reduction of abortion, yet which still require a heroic level of work, while not even considering this plan for ending legal abortion and getting it through courts, which would take no more work than to aim low.

Of course judges from time to time demonstrate their human capacity for upending all logic, evidence, precedent, history, culture, freedom, and the very Words of God. But judges are vulnerable to truth, and they are especially vulnerable to populations who are informed enough to recognize when they are dodging the law. That's why my plan isn't only a legal approach in court, but is also a political strategy for informing a significant enough part of the population enough to recognize when judges rule not only for murder but when they rule lawlessly, and enough to be upset enough to hold judges accountable. That's why my strategy includes not only a measure to end legal abortion, but a measure to make judges accountable to legislatures and voters any time they step outside the role of courts into the role of legislatures.

Have you ever read an actual court ruling? Judges may be the most reasonable branch of government, as measured by the care with which they summarize the arguments on both sides and reason through to a solution. For all the dumping we do on judges, they are models of patience and common sense compared to many of the rest of the human relationships in our lives. Most of their rulings are sound and good. How can we know this? Because they aren't reported in our news headlines.

Our frustration with the judiciary is that they are unaccountable when their rulings favor Hell. But that isn't because we are helpless. It is because we are intimidated. As much as we dump on judges, most of us feel incompetent to even read a ruling with the expectation of understanding it, much less evaluating it, much less publicly analyzing its reasoning.

Were that not the case, we would be more supportive of Congressmen who would be willing to impeach justices for being accessories to murder, or to take other measures short of impeachment.

I have been writing about prolife legal defenses for 30 years as of the end of 2019. Both through my published writings, and through briefs I have written for prolife defendants in court, I have interacted with Planned Barrenhood's finest legal talent. The bill I propose, with its Legislative Findings, contains Truths which I have seen their attorneys and judges dodge rather than address squarely and fairly. I believe with the defendant being a legislature, and if prolifers are well informed and are paying attention, dodging evidence and argument will not be an option for judges. They will be forced to accept the outlawing of abortion.

Lawmakers won't pass another personhood bill - no matter how court-proof!

Response: You say Iowa lawmakers simply won't pass a "personhood amendment" no matter how court-proof it is.

First, don't confuse what I propose with any "personhood bill" of the past. I certainly urge a bill establishing that babies are people, BUT backed by evidence - not just scientific, medical or genetic evidence we find on the internet, but legally recognizable evidence already in thousands of court records: unanimous court-recognized evidence from every category of court-recognized finders of facts. "Personhood" bills of the past have cited only the declaration of a single legislature; Alabama this year added medical authorities but only from their own single state.

Second, the opportunity I outline requires specific criminal penalties that substantially outlaw abortion. "Personhood" bills of the past came without criminal penalties tailored to the unique circumstances of murder of very tiny humans, such as the difficulty of proving, without a body, that a murder was committed. When such a toothless bill became law, courts didn't even bother to overturn them because they didn't stop any abortions anyway. It was only in that sense that such laws were "court-proof" - the same sense in which termites are exterminator-proof so long as they stay out in the woods and stay away from the house. Because as long as they stay away from the house, exterminators don't care about them. Of course the easy way to make a personhood bill "court-proof" is to keep it toothless; don't enforce it. No criminal penalties. That way abortionists won't care enough about it to take it to court.

Webster, 1989, explains that there is nothing for a court to decide, before there is an actual restriction of abortion whose substance and purpose may be weighed. Not even the president of PersonhoodUSA, a few years ago, expected its own personhood laws would be able to end legal abortion.

But if you mean Iowa Republican lawmakers aren't interested in a bill which would be both effective in stopping legal abortion, AND court-proof, you have to realize that is an untested theory. No bills like that have been considered over the past decade in the Iowa legislature. None of them cited Findings of Facts that included any evidence that "life begins" at fertilization, beyond the mere allegation of a single state legislature. There is no basis for imagining that is enough to persuade any court, since that is what was before SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade and that allegation of the Texas attorney general, Wade, was dismissed as a "suggestion" insufficient to "establish" the fact. ("If this suggestion of personhood is established...")

I believe the calculation that a bill cannot survive courts - or cannot effectively stop legal abortion - is a perfectly legitimate reason to have little enthusiasm for it. I believe the case I make, that the opportunity I outline is so irrefutable that no judge can squarely address the proposed evidence and keep abortion legal, will completely change the lawmakers' resistance which you expect.

Therefore I believe it is very worth the attention of every prolifer to take enough time to assess whether this bill, once passed, really will do well in court, AND once safely past courts, will end legal abortion. I believe the holdup is not Iowa lawmakers, but Iowa prolife leaders, to whom Iowa lawmakers must turn for guidance on what Iowa prolife voters are willing to understand and support.

In any case, my strategy requires a political component. Because of the readiness of judges to rule irrationally and illegally in cases where no one wants them to rule honestly and constitutionally, it is imperative that a significant population of prolifers understand the legal defense enough to recognize when a judge tramples law, justice, and Roe v Wade itself in order to perpetuate murder, so that the public will be ready to hold judges accountable.

We don't have time to read a book. You should talk to the lobbyists, and let THEM do all that reading, Give THEM the book. and then let THEM bring a nice simple summary to lawmakers

Response: Surely you don’t mean to disqualify my volunteer and I as “lobbyists”, as if we have to paid by someone other than God to merit your attention? My volunteer HAS done all that reading – I did all that writing - and that two-sheet mailing was about as condensed as any legislative agenda can get, that holds any promise of ending legal abortion.

You didn’t have to read very many pages to understand how this plan works. The first page of the book should be enough, to alert you to more of an opportunity than any state has explored - evidence which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal. The only reason to read the rest of the book is if, as a leader of this movement, you want to be equipped to answer every imaginable objection to this opportunity, or if you want to understand why a concept so simple has either never been thought of by anyone else, or has been thought of but rejected by even the most committed prolifers and lawyers.

As for the model legal brief which is part 2 of the book, that legal research is there for the benefit of any lawyer who wants help visualizing what kind of legal cases and arguments could carry this law successfully through every court despite such overwhelming judicial opposition to saving lives over the past 47 years. Not that it is over the head of anyone but a lawyer. Anyone can understand it. And the more people who understand it, the harder it will be for judges to get away again with dodging law, evidence, and precedent.

We are already paying for legal minds to work on it.

Response: A state lawmaker doesn’t want any information about how to end legal abortion because “we are paying lawyers to figure this out?” What is scary about that statement?

This man is a “Law Maker”. How happy can we be that a law maker is comfortable understanding less about law than a lawyer?

A judge’s role is to understand law only enough to apply it, not enough to write it. A lawyer’s job is only to bend the law to his personal interests. A Law Maker’s job is to write laws which can’t be bent for personal interests, and which can be sensibly applied to life situations.

We are all human, not knowing everything, so it is understandable that a law maker might know less about some areas than others. But this lawmaker doesn’t merely admit how intimidated he is, thinking he cannot understand the laws he enacts as well as a lawyer; he abdicates any responsibility to learn any more than he already knows! He has hired a lawyer to study so he doesn’t have to, so there is no need for him to take his precious time to examine the research I offer him.

Furthermore, it cannot be that any other human, than the one he has hired, may have valuable information on the subject. It is a waste of his effort to even try to understand what he has hired a lawyer to understand.

Not that he is less responsible than the rest of us; he merely articulates what probably most Christians feel. Intimidated. Not qualified. Therefore, not responsible.

Creepy, that not feeling qualified to understand law until a lawyer tells you what it means seems somehow irrelevant to the struggle of so many activists to become Law Makers!

But just as creepy that the rest of us feel so little responsibility to even try to understand law and lawmaking yet without any sense that our competence to elect lawmakers is thereby diminished!

The fact is the Rule of Law requires all of us to think for ourselves at least a little. To the extent we allow ourselves to be intimidated from even trying to question the experts, or from looking for better solutions than the old familiar, comfortable, official solutions which do not work as well as anyone wants, then even if we hire a lawyer to think for us, how will we trust the very lawyer we hired, when an EXALTED JUDGE rules that your LAWYER is wrong?

Even when you hire a lawyer, you need to understand your case as well as you can, or you won’t have any idea whether your lawyer is even doing what you want, and frankly, your lawyer won’t know either.

One other problem is that even if the Law Giver Himself, Jesus, were the one hired by a bunch of lawmakers who expected Jesus to do all their thinking for them, so that we could be confident that everything He advised was a 100% answer to everyone’s prayers, Jesus would still face the resistance of lawmakers who don’t understand what He offers, and who therefore will not support it. Two examples of God having to diminish the blessings He wanted to give mankind are 1 Samuel 8 and Matthew 19:8. By the same principle, any expert advising lawmakers must consider not just what bills should pass but what bills will pass, given not just the resistance of ideological enemies but the mental inertia of friends.

Civilization: specialists serving each other. Civilization is a structure made of of specialties; we develop our own area of expertise and serve others, as others with their specialties serve us. But whether we are hiring an electrician, carpenter, computer geek, or auto repairman, to the extent we don’t understand what we are asking them to do, we are at the mercy of both their integrity and their competence, and moreover, our lack of understanding will create many problems for which we will have to hire them back again and again.

In the case of abortion, law and precedents are so tangled up with twisted rulings which people who know better have been too intimidated to plainly expose, for so long, that the only way to unravel Mr. Death is for a lot of prolifers to jump off the fence about what certain plain words mean, so they can recognize, in significant numbers, the next time judges ignore plain evidence and law, and hold them accountable.

God calls us to think, decide, and act for ourselves. Christianity is a thinking man’s religion. Proverbs is a 31-chapter call to seek wisdom.

Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth. 6 Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee. 7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. 8 Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her. 9 She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.

Proverbs 8:1 Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? 2 She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. 3 She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. 4 Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. 5 O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart. 6 Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. 7 For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.

By contrast, Hindus don’t think anything is “true”, but rather, all is “illusion”. The goal of their meditation is to remove all cogent thought from their minds.

Ancient Greeks, observing how persuasively “rhetoric” is employed by politicians to promote lies, asked with Pilate, “What is ‘truth’?”

Moslems establish what is “true” by beheading anyone who tries to submit "insulting" evidence.

The Loveliness of Truth. Millions of Christians truly “love” (Proverbs 4:6) truth so much that it is harder for them to renounce it than to bear being tortured to death. Even though no man knows all truth! We Christians, many of us, are willing to die for devotion to the little glimpse of truth we have, even though many of our questions remain unanswered!

Jesus told Thomas, John 20:29 “Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Thomas had not lacked for evidence. A man born blind, seeing; a stormy sea walked on; 10,000 or more fed from a single lunch box; three dead people raised to life! Yet Thomas was determined to stay on his safe comfortable fence, about whether Jesus was actually alive, until every last question had been answered – until every last excuse for doubt was vaporized.

Why did Jesus say people are “happy” (the meaning of “blessed”) who don’t stay on their fence that long? Why does God especially value the willingness of people to jump off the fence between conflicting positions before every last question is answered?

The evidence that Jesus died and rose again is overwhelming, but only for those willing to look at, and think about, the evidence. (For example.) The fact that Jesus did that, and no one else did, proves that what Jesus says about God, and about what happens beyond death, is more reliable than what anyone else says. But it only proves that to those who think about that evidence.

Why does God want us to think? Why did God leave Adam and Eve alone with the devil, or at least so they thought? Why wasn’t God right there visibly, refuting the devil – better yet, silencing if not killing him? Why does God leave our faith at the mercy of our thinking?

A condition of Heaven is helping the least of Jesus’ brethren.

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:....45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

Jesus’ brethren are destitute and tyrannized partly because of natural conditions, and partly because of evil within humans. Delivering the destitute is therefore as complicated as humans are. Since we are humans that means delivering those in need stretches us to our full capacity. It requires thinking. It requires sorting through the evidence for and against each step of how to proceed.

The American model for Christian activism is half a dozen people per issue per state becoming expert on an issue, sending out fundraising letters with no more wisdom than will fit in four pages, in order to get salaries so the half dozen can keep studying, but who are too busy to process the flood of suggestions they receive from people who are not credentialed, qualified, certified, official experts.

This system rules out better solutions than the old familiar, comfortable, official solutions which do not work as well as anyone wants. But it is the preferred system. It has a very important advantage.

The Advantage of old, tested, official, failed solutions. This system spares most people from responsibility for deep, independent thought. Deep thinking – especially when the only people it benefits is other people – is costly.

Even when we are in the best of health, deep thought can be as physically exhausting as heavy manual labor. When we are sick, or in pain, the very idea of thinking deeply just for the benefit of others can be quite offensive.

Independent thinking, by definition, is lonely. It separates us from friends and even, sadly, sometimes, family. Matthew 19:29, Luke 14:26. (The Greek word μισει translated “hate”, means “love less”.) To independently understand some truth which is critical to helping others, and then to articulate it openly, both because you love truth and because you want to bless others, makes you the target of those who want to continue oppressing those you want to help, as well as the target of those who share your concern for the oppressed but are not ready to take the action which your truths demand.

That’s why God values those who are ready to jump off their fences and help, without waiting until reality sends fire ants up every last board. God wants Heaven full of people who love each other so much they are willing to suffer when that will help.

The Solution to Old, Tested, Failed Solutions. God offers a solution in one word: in Greek, He wrote the word, εκκλεσιαν. We translate the word “church”, but we define the word quite differently.

By the word, we today mean a large crowd gathered to hear one man speak, where decisions are rarely made by the group, nor action taken whose effects reach very far beyond the group. For example, action needed to deliver those being led away to slaughter with the blessing of government, Proverbs 24:10-12, may not be addressed, nor disagreement resolved through reasoning, nor action steps strategized on church premises, because that is both “politics” and “controversial”.

By contrast, the Greek word εκκλεσιαν meant, to Greeks, the gatherings of all the people of the city for the sole purpose of making political decisions as a body, with no single voice dominating the rest. This view of εκκλεσιαν is supported by an honest reading of 1 Corinthians 14, the Bible’s most detailed description of the format of a worship service, in which seven different verses call upon “all” to verbally contribute.

Obviously, were this what we mean by “church” today, the world would be blessed by a forum where real solutions would be discussed, vetted, perfected, and implemented, along with the personal spiritual development necessary to shine Light out where it is darkest. Fellowship would become a laboratory where participants could practice reasoning with each other in love, building the relationship skills needed to heal marriages, and to reason with unbelievers to bring them into the fold. “Church” would become CHURCH, a lighthouse for the land, an engine of healing for the culture.

Meanwhile. Until that next step in the progress of Daniel’s “stone...cut out without hands” (Daniel 2:34 – compare with Luke 22:25-27) takes root, consider that my book, “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts” may not be the only original idea or solution offered by Christians struggling to get their solutions looked at by the very people praying for them.

Consider, when someone offers you an opportunity that is so close to matching your bravest prayers that you are suspicious that it is “too good to be true”, that God explicitly promises happy endings that are “too good” to believe, but which are indeed true. Romans 8:28, 1 Corinthians 2:9. Be suspicious, instead, that you and your friends may be rejecting God’s answers to your very own boldest prayers, just because they are gift wrapped in hard work, a little persecution, or are delivered by a messenger you would be ashamed to bring to your country club.

You say you don’t know that the solution being offered to you will work? Until you have actually studied it enough to be certain it will not work, and cannot be made to work with some attention and prayer, you may be frustrating God’s efforts to bless you.

Get off the fence. Open it. Test it. See if it is real. Think for yourself. If the experts aren’t paying attention to it, find out if they have good reason, or are merely suffering from mental inertia.

That is a process that will expose you to a lot of nonsense, but at least you will thereby confirm that it is nonsense. That is also the process by which you will finally recognize God’s answer to your prayers – the means to finally bring down the mountains of evil (Matthew 21:21-22) that have tempted you to ask why a “God of Love” would allow them. You will learn the answer to that question: God has left them there for you to have something to pull down, to fill your own life with meaning.

I am not qualified/too busy/too scared to take the lead on this

Response: This bill pretty much explains itself. Its mission is to present evidence and argument that babies are people, making abortion legally recognizable as murder, so clearly and irrefutably that no judge can squarely address it and keep abortion legal.

If someone is against it, there are three possible reasons: (1) he hasn't read it and feels too busy with other priorities than saving lives to read it, which is a very common obstacle among lawmakers who have to read and take positions on a thousand bills every year; (2) he doesn't want legal abortion to end; or (3) he has identified a genuinely fatal flaw in it.

We look forward to critics in the legislature and in the media doing their very best to identify flaws in this bill so we can try to amend them before this bill becomes law. Because we don't want any flaws left in it when this law goes before a judge. We don't want it to be possible for any judge to squarely address this evidence and argument and keep abortion legal.

However, when criticism does not honestly address this evidence and argument, but only ridicules a caricature of it, people who want legal abortion to end and who are paying attention will notice the difference between this bill and the caricature, and will be encouraged that its opponents were unable to find fault with the bill without first pretending it was something else that was much easier to ridicule. Both news reporters and judges have done that in the past. Those of us who care about murder need to pay attention, and hold them accountable if they do that again.

Now that every court-recognized fact finder has established that abortion kills fully human beings, abortion is legally recognizable as murder, and we are very much against murder.

I certainly relate to being fearful of not being ready to face challengers. I began publishing my analyses of prolife legal defenses in 1989, 30 years ago, and I still have to choke down, or pray down some fear as I present this opportunity to a lawmaker, lawyer, or prolife leader. What if I am wrong? What if I have overlooked fatal errors in this too-good-to-be-true (but 1 Corinthians 2:9) answer to prolifers' prayers? What if I am humiliated even more than I have been already - not only for wanting an end to legal abortion, which makes me a "fanatic" according to Banned Parenthood as quoted with glee by their media puppets, but also for "tilting at windmills" - pursuing a legally unrealistic fantasy, divorced from reality?

But I have another fear that is even greater. What if I am right, and I do nothing for fear of being wrong, and when I stand before Jesus He shakes his head and says "If you had just tried a little longer, a little harder! Legal abortion was on the verge of collapsing, and you would have saved millions of lives!" (Not that the collapse of legal abortion rides on my actions alone. Every activist, every lawmaker, every prayer warrior, every voter has a rope in his hands tied to this mountain. All of us, pulling harder, are enabled by Jesus to pull it down.)

Queen Esther faced the same dilemma.

Esther 4:10 Again Esther spake unto Hatach, and gave him commandment unto Mordecai; 11 All the king's servants, and the people of the king's provinces, do know, that whosoever, whether man or woman, shall come unto the king into the inner court, who is not called, there is one law of his to put him to death, except such to whom the king shall hold out the golden sceptre, that he may live: but I have not been called to come in unto the king these thirty days. 12 And they told to Mordecai Esther's words. 13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews. 14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this? 15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer, 16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish. 17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

The opportunity promoted here is a more direct legal assault on legal abortion than any state has ever mounted. To the extent it is a real threat to the Murder Lobby, and to the extent you take the lead, liberal reporters will come after you with more lies, more malicious mischaracterizations, than you have probably ever experienced. That is, unless they have become more fair, honest, and principled than they were when I began publishing my writings about prolife legal defenses.

In fact, one of the bitterest accusations they will likely make about you is that you let yourself be deceived by me. Or worse yet, you agree with me.

I had a daydream, where I was you and was trying to defend this strategy to a hostile news reporter. I answered:

“One thing I have in common with the author of this strategy is a desire to see an end to legal abortion. Another is an urgency about placing before judges the legally recognizable evidence that babies are people, established by juries, expert witnesses, 38 states, and Congress.

"That much consensus, with not one legal authority saying human life begins any LATER than fertilization, seems pretty persuasive to me. Doesn’t it to you? Can you identify a fatal flaw with this measure?

"I am sure there are things about this goal that I don’t know. I assume I will be challenged with questions I can't answer. Which of course is true of anything that humans do which is very important.

"But what if this opportunity to end legal infanticide is real, and I do nothing?

"We humans are called upon by God to made decisions and take positions about things about which our understanding is imperfect. That always creates the risk of being ridiculed for overlooking some detail. Although frankly I expect to be hated more if this bill actually does succeed in ending legal abortion, than if it never gets out of the gate.

"I am definitely not the most legally qualified lawmaker to be leading the charge on this initiative, but I have a strong desire to find out if this opportunity is real, and the only real way to do that is to test it: to introduce it and see if anyone can disprove it.

"This is what Jesus did, when He was only 12 years old. He sought out the brightest minds in the world about His area of concern, and asked them questions, testing His understanding, seeing if they could disprove any of the concerns on His heart. (Maybe it was not at all for His own elucidation, but was only to set an example for us.) And then he thought about those answers for the next 18 years before He publicly opposed them. (Not that we have 18 years to save lives; God's time for us to act is often very short.)

"So let me turn your question around to yourself: can YOU find a legal fatal flaw in this theory? I am willing to suffer humiliation for the sake of satisfying my curiosity about this, and for the hope of saving many lives. I look forward to your article. I trust you will look for a law professor somewhere to refute me, but I challenge you to challenge her to actually read the legal arguments first before dumping on them.

"I have to warn you: if all you do is call me names as you mischaracterize what I am introducing, that will only encourage me to believe you had concluded that reporting this opportunity honestly would have left you unable to criticize it, because you share my belief that this opportunity is irrefutable! So what I will be watching for is to see if you can honestly address the arguments in this book and still

show how they are wrong. "If you can show me these legal arguments are wrong, I will withdraw my support for them. But I admit I want them to be correct, because I want there to be a way to end legal abortion very soon. Now that every court-recognized fact finder has established that abortion kills fully human beings, abortion is legally recognizable as murder, and I am very much against murder.

"Aren’t you?”

As frustrating as it is to have to take positions on matters about which not all our questions are perfectly answered, that is what makes it possible for humans to be heroes.

It is when the soldier charges into a hail of bullets, not knowing if he will survive, not knowing if he will accomplish anything at all, that he receives a Congressional Medal of Honor.

How easy it would be to play football - to carry the ball to the goal - if there were no opposing team! But how boring football would be! It is the opposition which makes football interesting.

Many people can paint fairly well. But when a paraplegic paints well, holding a paintbrush between her teeth, that is what makes people stand up and cheer.

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Work hard at whatever you do, because there will be no physical action, no tools, no schools, no skills in the world of the dead---and that is where you are going.

It is only during this short physical life that we have the human limits that make life an adventure, and enable us to be heroes. Heaven will be different. Creating will be easier and safer. There will not be foreign languages or limited knowledge in need of being built up and stored up through schools and libraries, we learn from 1 Corinthians 13, but there will be love. Which Matthew 15:13 defines as readiness to sacrifice ourselves for others. But love, we learn from 1 Corinthians 13, is the one thing we can start building right here, and which "you can take it with you".

Answers to Lawmakers' Objections

Contents