Difference between revisions of "Outreach to 2800 Republican Lawmakers in 30 States where Republicans Control Both Chambers"

From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)

(December 24, 2019)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 356: Line 356:
 
In case you don’t feel competent to evaluate these legal opportunities, please ask Martin Cannon for his analysis of my book. You entrusted him with the defense of your heartbeat bill. He has had my book since March. Ask him if he has reached a decision about the opportunity I outline. His office phone number, as listed on his Heartbeat defense briefs, is 712-545-9433.
 
In case you don’t feel competent to evaluate these legal opportunities, please ask Martin Cannon for his analysis of my book. You entrusted him with the defense of your heartbeat bill. He has had my book since March. Ask him if he has reached a decision about the opportunity I outline. His office phone number, as listed on his Heartbeat defense briefs, is 712-545-9433.
  
I am not against the “no right to abortion” amendment to the Iowa constitution which you are considering. But please don’t let an opportunity to eliminate the “fundamental right” status of abortion in Iowa distract you from also eliminating the federal “undue burden” standard, which was turned into [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Four_Drawbacks_of_a_%22No_Right_to_Abortion%22_State_Constitutional_Amendment#The_Virtually_Identical_Federal_Obstacle virtually the same thing] by ''Hellerstedt''. Don’t let your work on an amendment which courts could still [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Four_Drawbacks_of_a_%22No_Right_to_Abortion%22_State_Constitutional_Amendment#Can_a_.E2.80.9Cno_right_to_abortion.E2.80.9D_amendment_be_overturned.3F overturn] distract you from passing a law containing evidence and argument which no judge will be able to squarely address and keep abortion legal. See [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Four_Drawbacks_of_a_%22No_Right_to_Abortion%22_State_Constitutional_Amendment “Four Drawbacks of a ‘No Right to Abortion’ State Constitutional Amendment”] for my other concerns.  
+
I am not against the “no right to abortion” amendment to the Iowa constitution which you are considering. But please don’t let an opportunity to eliminate the “fundamental right” status of abortion in Iowa distract you from also eliminating the federal “undue burden” standard, which was turned into virtually the same thing by ''Hellerstedt''. See [[Four Drawbacks of a No-Right-to-Abortion State Constitutional Amendment#The_Virtually_Identical_Federal_Obstacle]]  Don’t let your work on an amendment which courts could still [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Four_Drawbacks_of_a_%22No_Right_to_Abortion%22_State_Constitutional_Amendment#Can_a_.E2.80.9Cno_right_to_abortion.E2.80.9D_amendment_be_overturned.3F overturn] distract you from passing a law containing evidence and argument which no judge will be able to squarely address and keep abortion legal. See [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Four_Drawbacks_of_a_%22No_Right_to_Abortion%22_State_Constitutional_Amendment “Four Drawbacks of a ‘No Right to Abortion’ State Constitutional Amendment”] for my other concerns.
  
 
=October 28, 2019=
 
=October 28, 2019=
Line 382: Line 382:
  
 
<> My book, '''"How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".'''  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and '''I will send  you a free copy.     
 
<> My book, '''"How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".'''  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and '''I will send  you a free copy.     
Free PDF:''' [http://.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
+
Free PDF:''' [http://.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
 
      
 
      
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
Line 445: Line 445:
 
I pray you will not let another year go by without seizing this opportunity.
 
I pray you will not let another year go by without seizing this opportunity.
  
<> My book, '''"How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts"'''.  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and '''I will send  you a copy at my cost.'''  Kindle, I can set up in a day; a paperback, delivery takes maybe a week.    PDF, a minute. '''Free PDF:''' [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
+
<> My book, '''"How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts"'''.  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and '''I will send  you a copy at my cost.'''  Kindle, I can set up in a day; a paperback, delivery takes maybe a week.    PDF, a minute. '''Free PDF:''' [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
 
      
 
      
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
Line 470: Line 470:
 
[[File:PersonFromConceptiontiny.jpg|thumb|200px|left|A Person from conception]]
 
[[File:PersonFromConceptiontiny.jpg|thumb|200px|left|A Person from conception]]
  
<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send  you a copy at my cost.  Paperback delivery: about a week. (Tell me the best address.) Kindle, about a day. PDF, about a minute.  Free PDF: [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
+
<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send  you a copy at my cost.  Paperback delivery: about a week. (Tell me the best address.) Kindle, about a day. PDF, about a minute.  Free PDF: [http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf]
 
      
 
      
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages (presenting the proposed bill language) where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
 
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages (presenting the proposed bill language) where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity:
 
]http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life]
 
]http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life]
  
<> [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Outlawing_Abortion_FAQ's_-_answers_to_lawmakers'_objections Outlawing Abortion FAQ's: answers to lawmakers' objections] (So far, the objections have not been to the legal correctness of this opportunity, but to the effort it takes to investigate it. About 50 lawmakers have the book so far.)
+
<> [[Answers to Lawmakers' Objections]] (So far, the objections have not been to the legal correctness of this opportunity, but to the effort it takes to investigate it. About 50 lawmakers have the book so far.)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)
 +
 
 +
Dave Leach
 +
 
 +
=January 10, 2020=
 +
 
 +
This is not a substitute for the "no right to abortion" state constitutional amendment, but you can do this also, which does not require passing the Amendment first:)
 +
 
 +
Successfully ending legal abortion in all states, in a year, requires a law that:
 +
 
 +
* includes evidence that babies are people which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal;
 +
 
 +
* lacks complexity in which judges can hide from evidence (see p. LXII of my book);
 +
 
 +
* addresses myths about abortion precedents;
 +
 
 +
* substantially reduces abortion, denying that murder must be protected from any “undue burden”;
 +
 
 +
* orders courts to “expedite” any review, “because lives are lost with each day that courts delay”, and/or that enacts the measures on page XXXIII.
 +
 
 +
Attached: a bill meeting these requirements, ready to forward to the LSB. "The 'Outlawing Abortion In Compliance With Roe' Act".
 +
 
 +
<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts".  Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send  you a copy at my cost.  Paperback delivery: about a week. (Tell me the best address.) Kindle, about a day. PDF, about a minute.  Free PDF: www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf
 +
   
 +
<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages (presenting the proposed bill language) where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity. This comprises the content of the attachment, plus brief explanations: www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life
 +
 
 +
<> Outlawing Abortion FAQ's: answers to lawmakers' objections (So far, the objections have not been to the legal correctness of this opportunity, but to the effort it takes to investigate it. About 50 lawmakers have the book so far across several states.)
  
 
In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)
 
In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)
  
 
Dave Leach
 
Dave Leach
 +
 +
=January 11, 2020=
 +
 +
Thank you for accepting my book, "How States Can Outlaw Abortion In A Way That Survives Courts". 17 Iowa lawmakers now have a copy (I have not sent any copies unsolicited.) Attached is my latest edition of the bill language I propose, (which may not be in the copy of my book which you have), in an .rtf file - just the bill without explanations, ready to submit to the LSB.
 +
 +
I am thrilled to be able to report that Martin Cannon, (who defended Iowa's Heartbeat law in court) who has had a copy last March and with whom I have had sporadic contact since before that, is now seriously discussing with others how to use this information. I don't assume that means he will endorse all of it, nor do I assume he is committed to any of it; but for a lawyer of his stature to have this information all that time and not yet rule it out, gives me hope. (I will send him a copy of this email as a check that I am not mischaracterizing his statements to me or reporting more than he wants reported.)
 +
 +
But the political strategy I believe is required to get this through courts includes widespread understanding among prolifers about the actual legal arguments involved. I know that nonlawyers, and even lawyers who don't happen to have prolife defenses as their specialty, HATE to think about taking a public stand on legal arguments! And yet the problem is that especially in abortion prevention cases, judges have notoriously dodged evidence of Life when it was presented, in violation of constitutional rights of the defendants and even in violation of Roe. They could, because not even many prolifers wanted abortion to end through one of those embarrassing cases.  I expect judges to do that again. But this time, in a review of a state law which will not embarrass the prolife mainstream, a significant number of prolifers need to be able to recognize if a future judge does this again, and to understand the magnitude of the irrationality and lawlessness, in order to be angry enough to hold judges accountable. That is why I am praying that you, having this book, will study this opportunity until you don't have to support it because of what someone else tells you whom you trust, but because you can clearly see for yourself that the evidence is so irrefutable that it will be impossible for any judge to refute it logically and lawfully, or even within the range of irrationality that voters have become numbed to tolerate.
 +
 +
I do not want this project to distract from the "No right to abortion" constitutional amendment. Some have expressed the concern to me that ANY other prolife measures would do that, as if there is only so much prolife gas, so every drop that goes into my tank will be a drop taken from yours. My belief is that the "legislative findings" in this book are not only compelling in courts of law, but in the Court of Public Opinion. My hope, therefore, is that these findings are so clear, and easy to understand, that even if this bill doesn't make it into law this year, this public education will put more gas in every prolife tank, will turn many Democrats into Republicans, many nonbelievers into Christians, and will fire up voters to pass your constitutional amendment in a landslide when it gets on the ballot - that is, if abortion is still legal by then because this bill still hasn't been passed.
 +
 +
=January 20, 2020=
 +
 +
I pray you have looked over and thought about the opportunity I have emailed you about over the past year, (attached: bill language only), to outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts.
 +
 +
The attachment includes a bonus: a way the legislature can regulate judicial review of its laws.
 +
 +
Surely it is well within the authority the legislature is given by the Iowa Constitution, to limit judicial review to the full panel of the Supreme Court (a single district judge shouldn’t have the power to overturn the deliberations of 150 legal experts), to require the Court to rule within 3 months, and to order justices to appear in a public hearing to discuss the overturning of a law with a panel selected by the legislature. (The attachment lists the phrases from the Iowa Constitution which give legislatures this authority.)
 +
 +
If that passes along with the bill I propose to outlaw abortion, surely judges will become a lot less arrogant and a lot more reasonable, and legal abortion will officially end in about a year from when the legislature acts.
 +
 +
Please tell me where I am wrong. If I am not wrong, please tell me these goals would be answers to your prayers as well as mine and you will vote for these measures when they come before you. (Or, at least, that you will not vote against them before you have investigated and determined that they really aren't the opportunity I say they are.)
 +
 +
=December 10, 2020=
 +
 +
(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)
 +
 +
Will you support these three goals?
 +
 +
* Restraining lawmaking judges with the blessing of the Iowa Constitution.
 +
 +
* Outlawing abortion in a way that will survive courts.
 +
 +
* Creating covid cover for the governor’s covid decisions, by inserting in Emergency Powers law an online response to covid controversies.
 +
 +
Restraining Lawmaking Judges
 +
 +
The bill last January: Iowa [https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=ssb3181 SSB3181] (Thank you, Senator Zaun, for introducing it)
 +
 +
This bill restrains lawmaking judges in 5 ways:
 +
 +
1. A single district judge can't overturn a law.
 +
 +
2. It takes 5 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a law.
 +
 +
3. The Court has to rule in 3 months.
 +
 +
4. The legislature may then compel designated justices to attend a public hearing to debate the constitutionality of the law.
 +
 +
5. The legislature may overturn the invalidation by a 2/3 vote, leaving the last word with better informed voters.
 +
 +
The official bill is posted at Iowa SSB3181 . It is posted at [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating#The_Two-Thirds_Majority Judicial Accountability Act: How Legislatures can stop judges from legislating] with more explanations, discussion, and FAQ’s, on a wiki where you can add discussion IN the article.
 +
 +
'''Outlawing Abortion'''
 +
 +
Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law:
 +
 +
''“Hasn’t the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”''
 +
 +
The defense does not seek to overturn Roe, but it relies on the part of Roe that implicitly classifies “when life begins” as a fact question, implicitly inviting resolution by court-recognized fact finders, and makes establishment of that fact dispositive grounds for outlawing abortion. It is simply impossible for any judge to squarely address this overwhelming, unrefuted, irrefutable, legally recognizable evidence and keep abortion legal.
 +
 +
How do I know? Because in three cases I helped appeal to SCOTUS, judges and expensive baby killer attorneys were unable to refute these arguments without first pretending our defense was something entirely different and much easier to ridicule. In one case, for Regina Dinwiddie charged under FACE for “sidewalk counseling” with a bullhorn, two 60-day “extensions of time” were requested by Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno to respond to my brief, after which Reno dismissed the charges so the SCOTUS appeal would be “moot”.
 +
 +
But to get courts to squarely address the evidence, law, and precedent, the case has to be created by a legislature passing a law, not by a defendant breaking a law. The problem with the latter is that hardly anyone wants “lawbreakers”, even if they save thousands of unborn lives, to prevail in court, so judges face no political pressure in dodging irrefutable arguments with “straw men”. A legislature, with irrefutable arguments embedded in the law, is harder for a judge to insult. Especially if the “Restraining Lawmaking Judges” bill is in place, it will be impossible for judges to dodge the arguments, facts, and precedent; and abortion will actually be successfully outlawed, and abortuaries closed, within about a year of passage of the law.
 +
 +
Links: My book, “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. [http://www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf Pdf]. Let me know if you would like a paperback. Its opening pages are a summary, and contain proposed bill language. Related [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Forum#Life articles]. I began offering this book to lawmakers just two years ago. Seven Iowa lawmakers have a copy, and about 50 in other states. (I began presenting this plan to Iowa lawmakers eight years ago.)
 +
 +
Covid Response
 +
 +
The real covid problem is that there is NO place in America where dissenting doctors can interact with mainstream doctors, in language the public can follow, so that their claims and counterclaims can interact, balance one another, and correct one another, so that consensus has a better chance, and Iowa can help defuse public skepticism about the value of obeying our governor.
 +
 +
Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have guranteed that THEY will never be such a place, by simply censoring expert testimony they don't agree with! CDC reports are obscured by technical language, and the CDC website does not allow dissenting doctors to fully articulate their objections and then face scrutiny, in the manner that courts establish facts by hearing from expert testimony on all sides.
 +
 +
So the solution is for ANY hospital, governor, or legislature to simply create a website that invites the posting of all evidence, with a rank boost for those who address counter claims, and present that knowledge base as what is considered in deciding policy.
 +
 +
WHO’s Jeff Angelo remarked yesterday that courts are increasingly skeptical of governors’ covid restrictions. The courtroom question, I would think, is how closely these restrictions come to infringing “fundamental rights”. If courts decide no “fundamental rights” have been harmed yet, a restriction only needs to have a “rational basis”. But when courts evaluate whether restrictions can restrain “fundamental rights”, then a restriction has to be backed by evidence that the restriction actually works, Angelo pointed out.
 +
 +
In courts, expert witnesses on all sides interact with each other, in language which can be followed without medical dictionaries. By creating such a forum, Iowa can not only defuse public skepticism about the value of obeying our governor, but by assembling better-tested science, and conforming orders more closely to science, Iowa can defuse any impetus towards litigation.
 +
 +
God bless you for reading this far! Please tell me if you support these goals.
 +
 +
=December 26, 2020=
 +
 +
(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)
 +
 +
Do you care about  restraining lawmaking judges with the blessing of the Iowa Constitution? (The bill's "findings of facts" lays out its authority through the Iowa Constitution.)
 +
The bill last January: Iowa SSB3181 (Thank you, Senator Zaun, for introducing it)
 +
 +
This bill restrains lawmaking judges in 5 ways:
 +
 +
1. A single district judge can't overturn a law.
 +
 +
2. It takes 5 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a law.
 +
 +
3. The Court has to rule in 3 months.
 +
 +
4. The legislature may then compel designated justices to attend a public hearing to debate the constitutionality of the law.
 +
 +
5. The legislature may overturn the invalidation by a 2/3 vote, leaving the last word with better informed voters.
 +
 +
The official bill is posted at Iowa SSB3181 . It is posted at Judicial Accountability Act: How Legislatures can stop judges from legislating with more explanations, discussion, and FAQ’s, on a wiki where you can add discussion IN the article.
 +
 +
This limit on overturning laws by judges is part of the strategy for outlawing abortion in my book, "“How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. Pdf. Abortion can be successfully outlawed without this measure, but this measure will make it happen faster and more easily.
 +
Bonus issue: Covid Controversy Solution. http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#A_POLITICAL_SOLUTION
 +
 +
=January 11, 2021=
 +
 +
(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)
 +
 +
May I know whether you support or oppose last year's Iowa [https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=88&ba=ssb3181 SSB3181] which would limit judicial review of laws? (The bill's "findings of facts" lays out its authority through the Iowa Constitution. See additional [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating explanations].)
 +
 +
Do you support or oppose a strategy for completely and successfully outlawing abortion in about a year? (See attached bill with brief explanations. For comprehensive explanations see my book, posted as a [http://www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf Pdf].)
 +
 +
23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)~~
 +
 +
'''If the "no fundamental right to abortion" constitutional amendment is the only prolife measure you think should be considered this year:'''
 +
 +
I do not oppose this goal. What concerns me is allowing it to displace study of other solutions that are (1) easier, (2) faster, (3)  just as certain to not be overturned by a judge, and (4) that will "substantially restrict" abortion.
 +
 +
1. '''Easier'''. As you know, passing a constitutional amendment is very hard. Requiring the next legislature to also approve it requires another Republican election victory, which is made less certain by how much election fraud Democrats have committed with not that much Republican resistance, which puts the executive and legislative branches of the federal government under their control as they promise to pack courts.  What will they do with future state elections?
 +
 +
2. '''Faster'''. As you know, a constitutional amendment will take a minimum of 3 more years, added to the past year during which the Amendment displaced consideration of other prolife solutions. The opportunity I outline could actually end legal abortion in about a year - especially if combined with the restraint of judicial review.
 +
 +
'''3. As certain to survive courts.''' I trust Martin Cannon's judgment that his wording will be safe in court. But the fact remains that judges have authority under the 14th Amendment to overturn even state constitutional amendments that violate "fundamental rights", and they have notoriously done so many times. So I wouldn't think the safety of an Amendment would be absolute. This is where you will have to read my proposal and judge for yourself, but I am still waiting to be shown how any judge could squarely address the legal arguments in my "finding of facts", and keep abortion legal. For example, my Finding #6 says "The 14th Amendment, Section 5, authorizes Congress, not courts, to define 'fundamental rights'.” And #5 observes, "the uncontradicted consensus of 38 states and Congress...that unborn babies are fully human...is legally conclusive"
 +
 +
'''4. Restricts abortion "substantially".''' The 1992 Casey precedent said no law can "substantially restrict" abortion. The Amendment being considered would leave that obstacle to saving lives in place.  Even Iowa's heartbeat law was presented in court as not being a "substantial restriction" at all; it would merely pressure mothers to find out more quickly that they are pregnant so they can kill their babies before they are "persons" with a detectable heartbeat.  Evidence that babies are people is irrelevant when the law's defense is that it is not a "substantial restriction". Only two states have plainly, openly restricted abortion: Rhode Island in 1973, and [http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Abortion_Law_Alabama Alabama] in 2019, [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20200508516 smacked down] last April 16,  but neither of them used the Findings of Facts that I propose.
 +
 +
=January 17, 2021=
 +
 +
(Sent only to members of the Judiciary Committees of the Iowa House and Senate, and two Senate leaders)
 +
 +
 +
 +
Please introduce “Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Roe” (PDF and rtf, attached) that will successfully outlaw abortion. With it, please resubmit SSB3181 from 2020, that will bring judicial review of laws under reasonable limits, for drafting and renumbering. (The first two pages of the attachments are for the bill drafters. The rest are documentation for lawmakers. See Judicial Accountability Act for FAQ’s about SSB3181.)
 +
 +
OR have them drafted as a private bill, not public, so that you can then contact anyone whose expertise you value that unless you hear from them that there is ANY legal error in them, you are planning to make them public as soon as they are drafted, and you will appreciate their support, because the more successful outlawing abortion is legally, the more you expect the rage of those invested in murder.
 +
 +
And if anyone identifies a legal problem with it, will you please forward the problem to me? So far no one has told me about any such problem, and I have shown it to a LOT of people.
 +
 +
Surely another year need not pass while a way to successfully end the slaughter of millions '''remains unexamined.''' Surely God calls us to much urgent action even when our knowledge is not perfect. Surely God tests our willingness to listen to the least of us by offering some of His answers to our prayers through people lacking in the world’s credentials. (Like when He sent Jesus. Also see James 2:3-8.) Surely a way to end the bloodiest curse against America's survival merits at least as much attention as bills which will save no lives.
 +
 +
Especially this year, when America's survival as a Republic whose leaders are elected by voting majorities seems more in doubt than it ever has, and as we turn to God with confidence that He has left us a way back – though always through the path of repentance, and as we examine ourselves for sins which may have merited God's judgment.
 +
 +
As you know, the closer a bill introduction is to the funnel, the easier it is to excuse inaction because there "isn't enough time". That is a lie. God, who made time, made enough of it for us to obey Him.
 +
 +
=January 18, 2021=
 +
 +
(This was not emailed to anyone, but was submitted as a [https://www.legis.iowa.gov/committees/subcommitteePublicComments?meetingID=32212&action=viewCommitteePublicComments public comment] regarding the subcommittee hearing of an Amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would nullify a 2018 ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court that there is a "fundamental right to abortion" in the Iowa Constitution.)
 +
 +
 +
I am happy to see Reps. Holt and Osmundson honored to launch this prolife bill. It is the kind of true honor that will go into your eternal trophy case, because of the cost you are willing to pay to do good. I am familiar with the names you will be called, the attacks on your reputation, your business, your family.
 +
 +
Acts 5:40 ... and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.  41  And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42  And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.
 +
 +
It is astonishing to me how the deathers respond to so remote a threat to their crimes as this Amendment, as if their entire industry, families, religion,  and purpose for life are being mowed down by invading aliens. It encourages me to anticipate that when you introduce my bill that will actually outlaw virtually all abortions successfully in a year or so, they will be utterly unable to leave it alone, but will attack it with enough fury to educate millions about the opportunity.
 +
 +
Will they attack with more fury than  over this Amendment? Hard to imagine, since every conceivable insult and label that anyone can imagine, they already exhaust at the slightest affront to their holiness. But they will try.
 +
 +
Of course, the greater lifesaving impact I foresee is because the Findings I outline are more profound attacks on the legal legitimacy of legal abortion than have been previously made. For example, the Amendment does not challenge SCOTUS' precedent that no state law can "substantially restrict" abortion, or have for its purpose any reduction of abortion. My Findings show how that precedent was based on errors of facts and must give way to today's consensus of fact finders which requires the "collapse" of legal abortion. Nor can there be, in Iowa or anywhere in the world, a "fundamental right" to what is legally established as, in fact, the murder of fully human beings.
 +
 +
The very consideration of these Findings by lawmakers able to codify them is really a powerful threat to legal abortion not only in courts of law, later, but in The Court of Public Opinion, now.
 +
 +
The information I outline has  been available for years. But it takes years for the parade-goers admiring The Emperor's Clothes to trust their doubting eyes and believe this Mountain that Jesus promised we can pull down, Matthew 17:20, really will fall. The screaming of baby killers over any threat to their trade is just the prod God can use to get His People to blink and look carefully at His Answers, and see how real they are.
 +
 +
My legal credentials of course cannot justify my confidence in this opportunity. The basis of my confidence is no one showing me legal errors in it after years of presenting it to judges, prolife lawyers, Banned Parenthood lawyers, news reporters, and lawmakers. If someone will do that for me, I will go away and stop bothering everybody.
 +
 +
=January 22, 2021, 48th year of legal abortion=
 +
 +
(Emailed to Iowa Republican lawmakers)
 +
 +
 +
 +
There is good reason to pass the “no fundamental right to abortion” amendment.
 +
 +
But don’t do it because you think before that happens it will be impossible to substantially restrict abortion. Because you CAN, and should, substantially restrict abortion, in a way that will survive courts, right now.
 +
 +
A leading Iowa prolife attorney encouraged me last season to be like the “persistent widow” of Luke 18:1-8. Even more fatal to my likability, Hebrews 10:24 tells me to “provoke one another to love and good works.”
 +
 +
The judge whom the “persistent widow” annoyed didn’t want to give her justice. Can it possibly be that prolifers don’t want a way to actually successfully end legal abortion in about a year?
 +
 +
Can it actually be that a constitutional amendment strategy that displaces other prolife legislation for a minimum of four more years – and which would leave in place the Supreme Court precedent that no prolife law can be a “substantial” restriction of abortion nor have for its purpose the reduction of abortion – is all prolifers want?
 +
 +
If you see problems with this opportunity, won’t you tell me so I can stop annoying people about it and I can have friends again? If you can’t identify any problems, won’t you act on it and bring an end to legal abortion this year? Or if you don’t trust your own judgment about such a legal strategy, won’t you ask those you trust to tell you what’s wrong with it, because if they can’t you will most certainly introduce and support it immediately?
 +
 +
The first two of the attached pages are the bill outlawing abortion; the remaining pages are explanations. Shortening the court review time to about a year would be accomplished by also enacting SSB3181 from last year, which would put reasonable limits on court review of laws. That bill, and explanations, are posted at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating
 +
 +
In Jesus’ Name (Col 3:17)
 +
 +
'''Summary of the legal challenge.''' Lower appellate precedent is unanimous: the consensus of court-recognized fact-finders that babies are in fact fully human “persons” is irrelevant – therefore inadmissible, because Roe made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”.
 +
 +
Roe said the opposite: that when it is “established” that babies are real people, then “of course” abortion will be legally recognizable as murder. Since Roe, every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position has unanimously said protectable human “life begins” at fertilization. None have said “life begins” any later. The fact is “established”, making abortion legally recognizable as murder.
 +
 +
There can be no “fundamental right” to murder, Roe said, adding that they would never have legalized abortion if they thought it would kill people. Therefore, the Iowa Supreme Court’s finding of a “fundamental right to abortion” violates the 14th  Amendment according to an honest reading of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the 14th Amendment requires every state to outlaw abortion.
 +
 +
These points need to be made in court, in a review of a law that “substantially” restricts abortion. Judges in prolife cases have a bad habit of dodging the evidence, so these legal arguments and facts need to be in the law’s “findings of facts”, to force judges to quote them in their rulings, and then to squarely address them.
 +
 +
No state has presented these “findings of facts” in court. Look over these 12 findings, and consider whether it is possible for any judge to squarely address them, and keep abortion legal. I don’t believe any can.
 +
 +
Public education is needed to help ensure that judges will squarely address the findings. If SSB3181 from 2020 is also passed, judges will be under enormous pressure to squarely address the Findings.
 +
 +
 +
James Bonnett
 +
 +
Don Burgmaier
 +
 +
Ben Clark
 +
 +
Brian Kreczler
 +
 +
Dave Leach
 +
 +
=February 5, 2021=
 +
 +
Now that the “no fundamental right to abortion” Amendment (HJR5) is through the House and faces no serious danger in the Senate, so that you needn’t be afraid that taking up more aggressive prolife bills will distract from that bill, will you look again at a strategy of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”?
 +
 +
Will you act before the February 12 funnel for bills to be introduced, so that this opportunity to completely end the slaughter, which has been presented to Iowa lawmakers for each of the past 10 years, and which does not require a constitutional amendment to succeed, will be put in motion so that the slaughter will not have to wait yet another year for lawmakers to think about it?
 +
 +
Or, if you see some irreparable legal problem with it justifying completely ignoring it, won’t you please let us know what it is? May we meet with you to discuss it?
 +
 +
Surely its goal: the successful end of legal abortion in about a year from introduction of a bill, is the prayer of every prolifer. We’ve been told for 48 years that such a prayer is impossible. But what if God has made it possible, and prolifers are too busy to investigate whether God’s answer to our prayers is real?
 +
 +
Attached is a one-page summary of the opportunity, which explains the obstacle to saving lives which will remain in the U.S. Supreme Court even after the Iowa constitution is amended, and also explains why this opportunity to end the slaughter is available right now, with the law and precedent before us right now. For more supporting documentation see my book, “How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts.” Contact me for a paperback copy.
 +
 +
I pray for your feedback.
 +
 +
(Attachment resubmitted: "Summary of the Legal Challenge")
 +
 +
=February 10, 2021=
 +
 +
How can we get courts to acknowledge the evidence that unborn babies of people are people?
 +
 +
For starters, by creating a case where that evidence is relevant. By passing a law that substantially restricts abortion.
 +
 +
And then by admitting in court that the law will substantially restrict abortion, but it must stand because  evidence proves that unborn babies of people are people.
 +
 +
Iowa's Heartbeat Law would have substantially restricted abortion, in the understanding of most prolifers, but the argument before Judge Huppert was that it would not prevent even one abortion! It would only make mothers find out sooner whether they were pregnant, so they can kill their babies before their heartbeats can be detected - before we know they are human people.
 +
 +
The evidence that babies of human mothers are humans is irrelevant in a court review of a law that does not substantially restrict abortion, such as a requirement that baby killers post a warning that pills don't always kill. Review of such a law won't much hinge on whether babies are people.
 +
 +
States have been afraid to "substantially" restrict abortion since Casey, in 1992, said no state could do that. And since lower courts unanimously have said Roe v. Wade made evidence that babies of humans are humans "irrelevant".
 +
 +
So that entrenched myth must be disposed of before courts will acknowledge that evidence. The law's "Findings of Facts" need to point out that SCOTUS never said such a stupid thing, Roe v. Wade said the opposite, and even if Roe hadn't, what Roe said was obvious is still obvious: once the evidence establishes that babies are people, legalizing their murder is as unthinkable as it is unconstitutional.
 +
 +
These  legal arguments (and a few others) must be embedded in the law's "findings of facts", because (1) rulings will then be required to quote them, which will make it VERY hard for judges to dodge them, (2) defense lawyers will have to  raise them, and (3) it will be easier for the legislature to pass the law when there is a vision of how to get it through courts.
 +
 +
The first two pages of the attached solution is ready to submit to the bill drafters. the rest is explanation of the legal obstacle addressed by each finding.
 +
 +
Dave Leach <> The Partnership Machine, Inc. <> 4110 SW 9th St <> Des Moines IA 50315 <> 515-244-3711
 +
 +
(Attachment: resubmission of "Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Roe Act"
 +
 +
=February 12, 2021=
 +
 +
don’t know how much of what I write to you this morning is what God wants you to hear. All I can be certain of is that after laying in bed over an hour, reviewing all the responsibilities and opportunities before me, pouring out my heart to God, I can no longer think of sleep.
 +
 +
I must get up and write to you again, on this final day of the deadline for introducing new bills, even though in this 10th year of offering a strategy for successfully ending legal abortion in a single year, of receiving some encouragement, no explanation of fatal legal problems so far as I can understand, but no action, I fear that these toilsome emails are only winding up in junk boxes. Especially after you see THIS email. But what if one of you will see this and act in time, and save millions of lives? How can I still sleep?
 +
 +
This morning I will focus on why I believe it is very important to God that you make it your priority, to trust God who wrote (Mark 10:27)  “'''With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.'''” and (Matthew 17:20)  “'''Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.'''” and to stop parroting this nonsense that a strategy claiming to actually get judges to end legal abortion in a year is “impossible” just because legal minds have been telling you that for 48 years.
 +
 +
Don’t you believe God answers prayer? What is this nonsense that “God always answers prayer but sometimes His answer is ‘no’”? That’s not in the Bible! (2 Corinthians 1:20)  “'''For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen''' [“so be it”], '''unto the glory of God by us.'''”
 +
 +
Seriously, is this all you pray for: a way to, after a few more years, resume peripheral regulations of abortion like cleaning the blood off the walls or informing moms that they are murderers - laws whose reduction of the murders is not “substantial”?
 +
 +
Won't you keep praying about abortion until it is  no longer legal? Don’t you cry out to God for an end to legal abortion not after several more bloody decades but rather after, at most, a few more months?
 +
 +
If that is what you pray for, where is your faith in God that when someone offers you exactly the opportunity you have been praying for for years, you say “impossible! I’m too busy chasing after goals little enough to be possible, to take time to validate the opportunity I really want.”
 +
 +
How dare you turn away from God’s answer to your most heartfelt prayer, just because He announces it to you through such a pathetic messenger, so lacking in the world’s credentials, and so reviled by mainstream media. Isn’t it rather typical of God to communicate with man through messengers of that quality? (1 Corinthians 4:9)  “'''For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.  10  We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.  11  Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 12  And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13  Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.'''” (1 Corinthians 3:18)  “'''Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19  For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20  And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.'''”
 +
 +
The next step, after trusting God’s promises, is to trust your own senses. When courts below SCOTUS unanimously say Roe made unborn babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”, so that evidence that they are fully human people is “irrelevant” in a case about stopping abortion, allow your brain to scream, “Wait a minute! How can the ''fact'' that abortion murders innocent people be irrelevant to whether it should be ''legal''? Can Americans have a constitutionally protected right to murder each other ‘as a matter of law?!’
 +
 +
“And what’s this business about Roe saying evidence is irrelevant, when, as we are reminded in decades of prolife fundraising letters, it was Roe which said when the facts “establish” that babies of humans are humans, then “of course” the 14th Amendment protects their right to life? And look at the evidence we have now! Every court-recognized fact finder calls them ‘people’ from the get-go. I have never heard any legal authority say ‘life begins’ any later. Isn’t it time to generate a court case full of this evidence?
 +
 +
“Why do we prolifers give up before we start, declining to lob this evidence in a court case because we assume no judge will listen to it anyway? Why don’t we first let a judge see it, before we conclude he won’t look at it?”
 +
 +
When cynics tell you “no use putting solid legal arguments before judges. Just look at what they ignored in the ____ case”, let your common sense step forward and recognize that excuse for apathy and doing nothing excuses not passing any law, ever. Don’t humans continue trying to reason with each other, and to “'''provoke one another to love and good works'''” (Hebrews 10:24)? Shall we give up trying because it is so hard and humans are so difficult? Or will we receive from God that to continue trying to reach even the hardest hearts is actually God’s key to our abundant life? (John 10:10)  “'''The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'''” (Mark 8:35)  '''“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.'''”
 +
 +
As for whether the specific legal arguments presented here may fail in court, that is an untested theory. No state has presented them in court. In any case, it should be obvious from their most cursory reading, that they are a whole lot stronger than anything in previous Iowa prolife laws. They are more complete than the laws recently passed by Missouri and Alabama. Plus, again I urge you to read the “findings of facts”. Can you imagine how any Planned Barrenhood lawyer or judge could squarely address them and still refute them? If you see a vulnerability, other than the general cynical “judges won’t squarely address them”, warn me so I can work on fixing it. If you can’t, give Truth a chance. Give Light a chance to heal the Darkness. Introduce this bill.
 +
 +
When Jesus was 12, even though He is the Son of God, he sought out the world’s experts in His area of concern, to test His understanding, as an example for us. '''Luke 2:41-49.''' Then he thought about those things for another 20 years before He announced them to the world. Similarly, I have sought out the world’s experts on abortion law. I interacted with thousands as a political candidate beginning in 1988, and for 25 years beginning in 1989 I published the Prayer & Action News, which triggered interaction with news reporters and Banned Parenthood leaders and lawyers. During those years I also wrote legal briefs for five cases which died on SCOTUS’ doorstep, interacting with the baby killers’ most expensive lawyers and with many judges. I know all about judges dodging evidence and argument; but when they did, that told me that the arguments were solid enough that they saw a ''need'' to dodge them.
 +
 +
I have interacted with the lawyers in the Iowa legislature, to the extent they have allowed. Martin Cannon tells me my strategy makes “strong points”, and Chuck Hurley advises me to be like the “persistent widow” in Luke 18:1-8. But the jump from occasional encouragement to action has so far not been attempted. Hope for the unborn scheduled to be slain next year seems dead, not because any legal flaw has been identified in it, at least so far as I have been informed, but because people have too little faith in their own intelligence and in God’s Promises, to dare to seriously investigate the Answer to Prayer offered here.
 +
 +
Why is ending legal abortion, now, while you have the opportunity, more important than anything else you can do – more important than any other issue? Because it is the key to healing every other issue. Of all evils today, it is the most obviously evil, to the most people. It is most clearly the issue placing America at the greatest risk of God’s judgment. Therefore, it is the issue which, once healed, has the most potential for restoring our nation to God. For example, the Democratic Party, the party of so many evils, is so addicted to baby murder that ending the murders will decimate the party and all its evils.
 +
 +
And not just decimate its evils as if by force, leaving millions ready for violent rebellion (as if they aren’t already, over nothing) but ''heal'' its evils by shining the Light of common sense, evidence, and the Love of God on Darkness, in the same way a clear demonstration by Elijah of the reality of God and the fiction of Baal finally motivated the people to throw off their chains of cruel superstition. At least for a day. '''1 Kings 18'''.
 +
 +
The other dimension of the spiritual importance of ending legal abortion is that to do it will require a better grasp of the Image of God which God has given every man and baby. I think the argument is a little weak that the only reason we “know” a baby is a “person” from fertilization is that medically and physically speaking, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”. True as far as it goes, and without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. And no baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary. And the failure of some to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of distinct groups of born persons.
 +
 +
But Roe itself “opens the door” to go deeper.. “Infused with a soul” is part of Roe’s definition of “persons”. Human life isn’t just physical. Although our physical development is progressive, souls have no known preconscious stage.
 +
 +
Roe fortunately 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 consensus of fact finders is, implicitly, 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: which in turn proves even the capacity to choose between good and evil is present even months before birth.
 +
 +
Thank you so much for reading this far. Of course I won’t know that anyone does, unless someone tells me. Now, I pray, act. The first two pages of the attachment are all ready to send to the bill drafters. The rest of the attachment is explanation for you.
 +
 +
 +
Dave Leach <> The Partnership Machine, Inc. <> 4110 SW 9th St <> Des Moines IA 50315 <> 515-244-3711

Latest revision as of 02:49, 24 June 2021

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

This article was started by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 04:59, 25 November 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.

Beginning November, 2018, I began emailing my offer of my book, at my cost, to any Republican lawmaker. Over the past year I have sent an average of half a dozen emails to each of the 2800 Republican lawmakers in the 30 states where Republicans control both chambers. (I didn't bother the Republicans in states where Democrats control one chamber, since many Republicans in that situation will consider it useless to even know how to end legal abortion where any attempt will be instantly crushed by Democrats. However, perhaps this information might provide a few Republicans the spiritual and political ammunition to take back both chambers.)

Each series of emails were a little different. This is a record of all the versions I have sent. Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Ohio do not publish email addresses of their lawmakers, so I had to submit information on web forms which allow limited text and no photos or links. This post does not include a copy of what I submitted there. Some states have addresses for only one chamber; several states lack addresses for some of their members. I emailed only those where I could find email addresses. In addition, I sent a printed paper booklet to Iowa lawmakers about November 1.

November 18, 2018

(To Iowa lawmakers)

Honorable Template:Office Template:Names,


Bravo for last year's heartbeat law which, in a few years, if it survives courts, will save babies old enough to have detectable heartbeats!

(From what I have been told, that will place before the court the question whether saving that many babies will be an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose. It does not address "when [constitutionally protected human] life begins", about which Roe claimed "the judiciary...is in no position to speculate".

Now are you ready to save the rest of the babies? Would you like to know "How any state can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts"? That's the name of the book I just finished, which I am offering to you, free. Just tell me if you would like a Kindle ebook or a paperback. Or if you would rather pay for it, the Amazon address is below.

The strategy requires a legal argument that the babies of humans are humans (seriously? Grown adults have to argue about THAT?) so strong that no judge can squarely address it and keep abortion legal, and a political strategy for how to pass it in a way that will educate the public enough to recognize when judges don't squarely address the defense, and to be ready to hold them accountable.

The legal argument is simple, but human beings, after they leave the womb, become complicated, inventing many objections. My answers to them became this book. The legal argument is so irrefutable, so simple, so compelling, that I believe just one legislator in any state, just introducing these measures, will start a "snowball down the hill" that Hell won't be able to stop.

In a sentence, in the form of a "question presented" to the Supreme Court, the legal argument is:

“Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts should now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

A half-page summary of the argument, in the form of a "preamble" or "finding of fact" embedded in a bill outlawing abortion:

"New Section: Preamble,Findings of Fact: The Iowa Legislature finds itself obligated to protect the Right to Life of all unborn babies by Roe v. Wade’s order that when the fact is “established” that “when life begins” is at fertilization, then “of course” the 14th Amendment requires states to outlaw abortion. Iowa finds that no fact could be more legally established than this fact, which is the consensus of all American legal authorities who have taken a position, in all categories of court recognized finders of facts – juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, and Congress with 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d). Iowa finds that no American legal authority has ever affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not a human/person, or that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. In view of this overwhelming, uncontradicted, irrefutable consensus, Iowa finds that its legal liability from noncompliance with the 14th Amendment, by failing to criminalize abortion, is greater than any legal liability from taking corrective action in advance of indecisive courts."

The book contains

  • a model 175 page legal brief that analyzes abortion cases,
  • quotes from Justice Kavanaugh about how "stare decisis", or "precedent upon precedent" as he called Roe, is overcome by evidence that the factual claims that were the basis of the precedent have changed - and what facts have indeed changed,
  • the legal and political reasons prolife bills must preview the irrefutable legal argument; and the legal, political, and Biblical reasons a fundamental attack on abortion must not, initially, address the "three exceptions" or contraception

December 2, 2018

(To lawmakers in North Dakota and Iowa)

Did you know Roe v. Wade actually orders states to outlaw abortion as soon as facts are “established” which are now unanimously established by all court-recognized finders of facts which have taken a position? (Juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, Congress, and judges.) Stare decisis is on our side. We don’t need to overturn the reasoning of Roe. We just need to challenge lower appellate courts to obey it.

Did you know when Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh was being questioned during his senate confirmation, he explained exactly how to overturn the holding (what Roe ordered) of Roe v. Wade? (Through evidence that the facts upon which a precedent was based were mistaken. He didn’t explain that while being questioned about Roe, but while being questioned by Senator Whitehouse who was anxious to overturn another precedent that Democrats hate.)

I want to make sure you lawmakers in “one of the most prolife states in the nation” know "How any state can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts" (The title of my book on Amazon, which I offer to you at no cost. Just tell me if you prefer paperback or Kindle.)

What is the “erroneous factual premise” of Roe v. Wade?

“No judge is smart enough to know if the baby of a human is a human”, Roe said.

WhatIsItWeb.jpg

Well, no, they didn’t say it that clearly, in that few words. They added enough big words to keep most Americans from laughing out loud. Here’s how they said it:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of 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 410 US 113, 159

In other words, “when life begins” was treated as a fact question, about which the Court depends on the superior expertise of doctors and preachers, not a question of law, in which the justices are the world’s experts with no interest in the views of doctors and preachers, much less any dependence on doctors and preachers to tell them the facts of life.

That this alleged ignorance of the facts was the central factual underpinning of Roe is shown by Roe’s statement that if they find out those are actually babies, then “of course” states will need to outlaw abortion again. Again, they didn’t say it quite that simply. They said:

“If this suggestion of personhood [of unborn babies] is established, the...case [for legalizing aborticide], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.” Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 156

How has that factual underpinning of Roe v. Wade changed since then?

Since then, every American legal authority which has taken a position on “when [constitutionally protected human] life begins, has ruled that “life begins” at conception or fertilization. No American legal authority has ruled that it begins any later.

And not just a few legal authorities, or authorities whose views are irrelevant. The legal authorities I’m talking about are court-recognized finders of facts.

Like juries – all who were allowed to rule on “when life begins” before judges silenced them.

Expert witnesses – thousands of them, in trials of prolifers. They were never contradicted.

State legislatures – 38 of them – the 75% needed to ratify a constitutional amendment.

Congress, whose authority to establish facts is highly regarded by courts.

And even those few individual judges who have taken a position on the fact.

In all five categories of court-recognized finders of facts, the verdict is unanimous. Abortion is not merely scientifically recognizable as murder: it is legally recognizable as murder. Genocide. Infanticide. If judges still “are in no position to speculate” about the fact of “when life begins”, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.

Iowa has just passed a heartbeat law, apparently like the one North Dakota passed 3 years ago. The first court hearing will be this Friday. I won’t know the state’s arguments until then, but from what I am told the court will not be called upon to address the now overwhelmingly legally established fact that constitutionally protectable “life begins” at conception/fertilization. Apparently the North Dakota defense did not make that point either, but rather argued that babies at fertilization are “viable” - they can life outside a womb – a specious claim compared to the rock-solid evidence that babies at fertilization are humans/persons. No American legal authority has said protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization.

(In other words, the defense turned not on whether human beings have a right to live, which would demand saving babies at less than six weeks, but on whether human beings can in fact survive outside a womb at only six weeks of development. If I misunderstand the defense, someone please educate me – all I know is what I read in a paper.)

I propose pressure on judges to address the unanimous evidence which Roe said would “of course” end legal abortion.

This strategy requires a legal argument that the babies of humans are humans (seriously? Grown adults have to argue about THAT?) so strong that no judge can squarely address it and keep abortion legal, and a political strategy for how to pass it in a way that will educate the public enough to recognize when judges don't squarely address the defense, and to be ready to hold them accountable.

The legal argument is simple, but human beings, after they leave the womb, become complicated, inventing many objections. My answers to them became this book. The legal argument is so irrefutable, so simple, so compelling, that I believe just one legislator in any state, just introducing these measures, will start a "snowball down the hill" that Hell won't be able to stop, until it smacks into Hell’s abortion outpost, which really will, then, freeze over.

In a sentence, in the form of a "question presented" to the Supreme Court, the legal argument is: “Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts should now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

A half-page summary of the legal argument, in the form of a "preamble" or "finding of fact" embedded in a bill outlawing abortion:

"New Section: Preamble,Findings of Fact: The North Dakota Legislature finds itself obligated to protect the Right to Life of all unborn babies by Roe v. Wade’s order that when the fact is “established” that “when life begins” is at fertilization, then “of course” the 14th Amendment requires states to outlaw abortion. North Dakota finds that no fact could be more legally established than this fact, which is the consensus of all American legal authorities who have taken a position, in all categories of court recognized finders of facts – juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, and Congress with 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d). North Dakota finds that no American legal authority has ever affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not a human/person, or that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. In view of this overwhelming, uncontradicted, irrefutable consensus, North Dakota finds that its legal liability from noncompliance with the 14th Amendment, by failing to criminalize abortion, is greater than any legal liability from taking corrective action in advance of indecisive courts."

The book contains

  • a model 175 page legal brief that analyzes abortion cases,
  • quotes from Justice Kavanaugh about how "stare decisis", or "precedent upon precedent" as he called Roe, is overcome by evidence that the factual claims that were the basis of the precedent have changed - and what facts have indeed changed,
  • the legal and political reasons prolife bills must preview the irrefutable legal argument, and
  • the legal, political, and Biblical reasons a fundamental attack on abortion must not, initially, address the "three exceptions" or contraception.

Please accept this information. Just tell me whether you prefer a paperback or Kindle file. And if you find any errors in the legal or political strategy, please tell me.

December 12, 2018

(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)

I appreciate that you sent the courts a 20 week baby killing ban and a heartbeat law. But I beg you, send the courts an abortion criminalization that makes them address the overwhelming, uncontested, legally recognizable evidence that ALL unborn babies are humans/persons. Please accept my book explaining how, which I offer you free - just tell me where to send it. (Paperback, Kindle, or PDF.)

North Dakota's heartbeat law didn't ask any judge to address the evidence three years ago, and neither does Iowa's heartbeat law this year. It endured a hearing Friday on whether the law is so obviously "unconstitutional" that the judge should overturn it without bothering with a trial. ("Summary judgment".) Prolife attorney Martin Cannon came the closest to saying "those babies are people" when he said a baby with a heartbeat is a "living child". The judge promptly asked if he had any "support" for that "rhetoric". Cannon's answer was something about a matter of intuition concerning objectively undefinable things which legislatures ought to be free to decide. He said it is something obvious; Iowans don't need a law to tell them it's a baby. Elsewhere in his briefs and in his oral arguments he made the point that Iowa law uses the lack of a heartbeat to measure death, so therefore the existence of a heartbeat measures life.

Intuition? There is no more formal, court-admissible evidence, than what is intuitively obvious to Iowans? The Family Leader appears to appeal to the collective intuition of thousands of everyday Iowans, through petitions to the court saying "that's a baby". But wouldn't a much stronger argument have been, not what strikes ordinary people as obvious, (which is not ordinarily admissible in court), but that every court-recognized fact finder which has taken a position on when protectable life begins has established that it begins at fertilization - "at every stage of gestation"? I strain to see how intuition formalizes the claim into an objective finding of fact admissible in court.

But juries already do precisely that: formalize that claim into an established fact admissible in court - and many juries in abortion prevention cases have already done that. Why not cite them too? Why attempt to start from scratch, when mountains of unrefuted, irrefutable evidence are there for the citing?

In a world which rejects the Bible as a reliable authority on facts, cultures over the centuries have had conflicting views on when people are "recognizably human, or in terms of when a 'person' came into being" to use Roe's terminology. Christians, Jews, blacks, poor folks, old folks, crippled folks, children, babies, immigrants, women, Republicans, have all taken their turn at dehumanization.

Science can only tell us about the uninterrupted progression of physical development, although that can include brain wave activity, an indication of consciousness, although that does not quite rise to the level of establishing a "soul". However, when expert witnesses present their evidence in court, who aren't as qualified as the Bible to assure us these humans have souls, but are more qualified than anyone else, their testimony is court-recognized, and held by judges to be greater in fact-finding authority than their own. Expert witnesses have already testified by the thousands in abortion prevention trials and have never been refuted. Why not cite them?

And why surrender to Hell every baby whose heartbeat is not yet detectable? Not only is that not necessary, but it weakens the claim that just SOME babies are humans/persons, to fail to cite the consensus of court-recognized fact finders that ALL babies are humans/persons "at all stages of gestation".

This overwhelming consensus makes the fact that the Heartbeat Law protects living children not "merely" true according to the latest science, or supported by intuition, or supported by the Bible (Heaven forbid THAT should be taken as relevant), but LEGALLY COGNIZABLE fact and law - a fact which Roe said would be dispositive, and would be even if Roe had not said so. If judges are still "in no position to speculate" (Roe's excuse) about when protectable "life begins" even after he is told by all court-recognized fact finding authorities that have taken a position, in every court-recognized category of fact-finding legal authorities, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.

Because Iowa's defense for its Heartbeat Law makes no claim, supported by strong court-recognized evidence, that even SOME babies are humans/persons, the prolife defense must struggle to satisfy "strict scrutiny" and "narrow tailoring" review focused on brutally stopping any greater restriction than necessary of the "fundamental right" to murder your very own baby. In order to meet this Criteria From Hell Cannon actually made the disgusting arguent that not one baby murder will be prevented by Iowa's heartbeat law! All it does is require women to hurry up and murder their babies while it remains legal -before their babies' heartbeats can be detected. Both the judge and the Planned Barrenhood attorney marveled at the irony that in the "72 hour rule", overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court only this summer, Iowa wanted murdering moms to have to wait 72 hours after setting an appointment, to make sure they really want to murder, but now a few months later Iowa wants them to hurry up and murder their babies as fast as they can!

But if you will pass a law whose preamble or "finding of facts" embeds the uncontested evidence that protectable human life begins at fertilization, then the defense wouldn't have to deal with "strict scrutiny" or an "undue burden", because as Roe said would "of course" be obvious even if Roe had not said it, once we know those are humans/persons in there, the 14th Amendment obligation of states shifts to PROTECTING ALL those babies by outlawing ALL baby killing again.

In case you would like to read the briefs in Iowa's case, or see my notes on the oral arguments, or consider my analysis of how strong the arguments might seem to a judge too stupid to understand that babies of humans/persons are humans/persons, I have posted them at www.Saltshaker.US/SLIC/IowaHeartbeatArguments.pdf.

What if I don't know what I am talking about? What if what I call Iowa's opportunity to outlaw baby murder in a way that survives courts is riddled with error and is only an opportunity to make fools of ourselves? If someone will take the trouble to explain why what I offer is no opportunity at all, I promise that I will stop bothering people and will instead sedate myself with TV.

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17) (I close every letter with this close, though I don't repeat it for every copy here.)

December 13, 2018

(Sent to Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, Wyoming, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Montana, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi)

“How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts” is the title of my book which I offer you free. Just tell me whether you want a paperback, kindle, or PDF, and where to send it.

It was easy to miss, but did you know Justice Kavanaugh, in his confirmation hearings, told us exactly how to overcome "stare decisis", or "precedent upon precedent" as he called Roe? He didn't explain while being questioned about Roe, but while being questioned by Democrat Senator Whitehouse, about a precedent that Democrats hate:

“...if [any precedent] is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors [for disregarding stare decisis and overturning precedent]...Sometimes there are ‘mistakes of history’ in decisions and ‘mistakes of fact’.” Day 3, 4:53:50

And what is the “erroneous factual premise” of Roe v. Wade? Which has over 45 years been unanimously rejected, not "merely" by the latest science, or by public opinion polls, or by the Bible, (Heaven forbid THAT should become accepted in American government today as a fact finding authority!) but by every court-recognized American legal authority which has taken a position?


WhatIsItWeb.jpg

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law: “Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

Of course that is enough legally recognizable evidence to shift the 14th Amendment obligation of states from protecting the right to murder your very own baby to outlawing ALL baby killing.

In all five categories of court-recognized finders of facts, the verdict is unanimous. Abortion is not “merely” scientifically recognizable as murder: it is legally recognizable as murder. Genocide. Infanticide. If judges still “are in no position to speculate” about the fact of “when life begins”, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.

It is simply impossible for any judge to squarely address this overwhelming, unrefuted, irrefutable, legally recognizable evidence and keep abortion legal.

BUT...

  • Judges only address facts that are presented in a case before them. So...
  • The case before them must turn on the legally recognizable evidence that constitutionally protected life begins at fertilization, not 20 weeks later, or even 6 weeks later. (See IowaHeartbeatArguments if you would like to see the briefs - with my analysis - in Iowa’s latest court battle, in which “personhood” is NOT claimed before a heartbeat, and the evidence for personhood even then does not seem legally recognizable.)
  • To ensure that the lawyers defending the law will present this evidence, this evidence must be previewed in the bill’s “preamble” or “finding of facts”. For example:

"New Section: Preamble, Findings of Fact: The IdahoLegislature finds itself obligated to protect the Right to Life of all unborn babies by Roe v. Wade’s order that when the fact is “established” that “when life begins” is at fertilization, then “of course” the 14th Amendment requires states to outlaw abortion. Idaho finds that no fact could be more legally established than this fact, which is the consensus of all American legal authorities who have taken a position, in all categories of court recognized finders of facts – juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, and Congress with 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d). Idaho finds that no American legal authority has ever affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not a human/person, or that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. In view of this overwhelming, uncontradicted, irrefutable consensus, Idaho finds that its legal liability from noncompliance with the 14th Amendment, by failing to criminalize abortion, is greater than any legal liability from taking corrective action in advance of indecisive courts."

  • Prolife public education must be focused not on just a couple of sound bites in fund raising letters, but on understanding the legal argument well enough to recognize when judges dodge it, preparing the public to hold them accountable when - not if - they do.

My (free to you) book contains

  • a model 175 page legal brief that analyzes abortion cases, that thoroughly supports the above claims;
  • the legal and political reasons prolife bills must preview the irrefutable legal argument; and the legal, political, and Biblical reasons a fundamental attack on abortion must not, initially, address the "three exceptions" or contraception
  • the kinds of prolife cases that have created irrational baby killing case law, why prolife majorities didn’t support them, and why review of a state law is our best hope of attracting sufficient prolife support to educate the public to recognize when judges dodge the irrefutable evidence.

I beg you: make courts squarely address the unanimously, legally recognized facts.

December 21-24, 2018 - Christmas

(Sent to lawmakers in Georgia, Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Montana, North Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Nebraska, Missouri again, Georgia again, Indiana again)

[Give Jesus a present this Birthday. Check out the way, below, that you can end legal abortion.

PersonFromConceptionweb-e1513834656899.jpg

(The rest of this email is like I sent out December 13.)

January 1-5, 2019

(Sent to lawmakers in West Virginia, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Montana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi, Nebraska, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Alabama, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas)

“How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts” is the title of my book which I offer you free. Just tell me whether you want a paperback or kindle. If you can use a PDF, here is a link to a free PDF you can share with anyone.

(But if you download a PDF, will you please let me know just so I can be encouraged that someone from your state is considering the opportunity? So far I have emailed this offer to 1673 Republican lawmakers in 22 states where Republicans control both chambers. 14 have accepted out of 9 states; there has been no response from 13 states including from yours. (I have not posted the PDF link before today.)

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law: “Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

I am asking you to embed this kind of evidence in a bill outlawing abortion. This legally recognizable consensus is that constitutionally protected "life begins" at conception/fertilization, not 20 weeks later or when a heartbeat is detected. Although I applaud any bill that saves even one life, I don't understand the resistance to saving them all. Especially since half measures are legally awkward in court. For example, see IowaHeartbeatArguments - the briefs, oral arguments in the "motion to dismiss" hearing, and my analysis. Without citing the overwhelming evidence that Roe said would change everything, SCOTUS' demand remains unchallenged that a restriction on abortion must not be an "undue burden" on "a woman's right to choose", so the lawyer actually felt he had to argue that Iowa's heartbeat law will not prevent one single abortion but will simply require women to get them before their heartbeats are detected - before they are persons!

I beg you: make courts squarely address the unanimously, legally recognized facts.

January 9-13, 2019

(Sent to lawmakers in North Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Montana, Alaska)

“How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts” is the title of my book which I offer you free. Just tell me whether you want a paperback or kindle. If you can use a PDF, here is a link to a free PDF you can share with anyone. (The paperback will take about 4 days from my town to yours.)

(But if you download a PDF, will you please let me know just so I can be encouraged that someone from your state is considering the opportunity? So far I have emailed this offer to 1673 Republican lawmakers in 22 states where Republicans control both chambers. 14 have accepted out of 9 states; there has been no response from 13 states including from yours. (I have not posted the PDF link before today.) [Note: not mailed to lawmakers: I didn't understand from the Kindle book publishing site until today that I was ALLOWED to make a free PDF available elsewhere.)

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law: “Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

I am asking you to embed this kind of evidence in a bill outlawing abortion. This legally recognizable consensus is that constitutionally protected "life begins" at conception/fertilization, not 20 weeks later or when a heartbeat is detected. Although I applaud any bill that saves even one life, I don't understand the resistance to saving them all. Especially since half measures are legally awkward in court. For example, see IowaHeartbeatArguments - the briefs, oral arguments in the "motion to dismiss" hearing, and my analysis. Without citing the overwhelming evidence that Roe said would change everything, SCOTUS' demand remains unchallenged that a restriction on abortion must not be an "undue burden" on "a woman's right to choose", so the lawyer actually felt he had to argue that Iowa's heartbeat law will not prevent one single abortion but will simply require women to get them before their heartbeats are detected - before they are persons!

I beg you: make courts squarely address the unanimously, legally recognized facts.

January 13, 2019

(Sent to North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Nebraska, Missouri, Indiana, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Alabama, )

(At this time I sent a copy of what I had sent out December 13)

January 14, 2019

(Sent to Georgia)


(At this time I emailed a copy of what I had sent January 1)

January 22, 2019

(Sent to North Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Florida, Alabama, North Carolina, Wyoming, Idaho,

“How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts” is the title of my book which I offer you at my own cost, Just tell me whether you want a paperback, kindle, or PDF, and where to send it. Actually I also offer a free PDF to everybody, posted at http://saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf, and a free paperback or Kindle to any Christian who will pledge to read it and either use it to save lives, or explain to me why it won’t work.

An overview of your opportunity is posted at https://ipatriot.com/how-states-can-outlaw-abortion-in-a-way-that-survives-courts

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law: <span style="color:#0000FF"“Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must now ‘of course’ protect their 14th Amendment rights?”</span>

So far I have emailed this offer to 2300 Republican lawmakers in 28 states where Republicans control both chambers. 26 have accepted out of 14 states; there has been no response from 14 states. I sincerely believe this opportunity is so compelling, so unstoppable, that just one lawmaker in any state, just introducing a bill to outlaw abortion containing in its finding of facts the legally recognizable evidence which Roe v Wade said would “of course” end legal abortion, with a Simple Resolution laying out more details, will start the snowball down Heaven’s Hills. When it hits Fort Abortion, Hell’s outpost really will freeze over.

Bonus: how states can make judges stop legislating. P. 34 of my book.

April 2, 2019

(Sent to Louisiana, North Carolina, Arkansas)

“How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts” is the title of my book which I offer you free. Just tell me whether you want a paperback, kindle, or PDF, and where to send it. (Here is a PDF copy free to anybody.)

Justice Kavanaugh, in his confirmation hearings, told us exactly how to overcome "stare decisis", or "precedent upon precedent" as he called Roe. He didn't explain while being questioned about Roe, but while being questioned by Democrat Senator Whitehouse, about a precedent that Democrats hate:

“...if [any precedent] is based on an erroneous factual premise, that is clearly one of the factors [for disregarding stare decisis and overturning precedent]...Sometimes there are ‘mistakes of history’ in decisions and ‘mistakes of fact’.” Day 3, 4:53:50

So what was the “erroneous factual premise” of Roe v. Wade? It was that "The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is unable to speculate" whether an unborn baby is "recognizably human" (which Roe equated with a "person"). Therefore, courts allegedly can't confirm any harm in killing them. This cartoon illustrates:

WhatIsItWeb.jpg

And how has this "mistake of fact" been refuted since 1973? What is missing from prolife legal arguments is that this mistake of fact has not just been refuted by modern medical science occurring outside the courtroom, but more importantly for a judge, by every court-recognized American legal authority which has taken a position. This cartoon illustrates:

ItsABabyNowYouKnowCartoon.jpg

If judges really were "in no position to speculate" about whether unborn babies are people then, they certainly aren't now. In fact, if the consensus of all court-recognized finders of facts is not enough for a judge to know something, it is impossible for any judge to know anything.

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law: “Has the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

It is simply impossible for any judge to squarely address this overwhelming, unrefuted, irrefutable, legally recognizable evidence and keep abortion legal.

However, numerous courts below SCOTUS have clouded these legally recognizable facts by ruling that SCOTUS said what SCOTUS demonstrably did not say: that it is irrelevant whether unborn babies are in fact humans/persons, making abortion murder, because Roe made babies unpersons "as a matter of law". That and a few other legal misunderstandings over the years are corrected in my book, along with proposed legislation and a political strategy for getting the right kind of bills in court that will force judges to squarely address the evidence and arguments.

I propose three kinds of measures:

  • a Simple Resolution (attached .rtf file) which is a 4 page summary of the legal argument, which can generate discussion and support for the bill, and which is not subject to funnel deadlines;
  • a bill fundamentally outlawing abortion with a bit of the legal defense embedded in a "finding of facts", to ensure that the legal defense in court will include it - for example:
New Section: Preamble, [aka Legislative Intent, aka Findings of Fact]:The legislature finds itself obligated to protect the Right to Life of all unborn babies by Roe v. Wade’s order that when the fact is “established” that “when life begins” is at fertilization, then “of course” the 14th Amendment requires states to outlaw abortion. The legislature finds that no fact could be more legally established than this fact, which is the consensus of all American legal authorities who have taken a position, in all categories of court-recognized finders of facts – juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, and Congress with 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d). The legislature finds that no American legal authority has affirmed that any unborn baby of a human is not a human/person, or that protectable “life begins” any later than fertilization. In view of this uncontradicted consensus, the legislature finds that its legal liability from noncompliance with the 14th Amendment, by failing to criminalize abortion, is greater than any legal liability from taking corrective action in advance of indecisive courts.
  • a bill enabling the legislature to compel judges to appear before a public hearing to discuss the constitutionality of a law which a court has invalidated, based on the legislature's impeachment powers for malfeasance of office, in exercising a power appertaining to another branch of government.

Either of these measures may be introduced at your earliest opportunity. But for an easy first step, I propose that you simply show the attached Simple Resolution to any lawyer whose analysis you trust. If his analysis is positive, you will have the encouragement you need to introduce at least the Simple Resolution which will begin a lot of discussion. If it is negative, PLEASE share it with me so that I may learn from it, and respond to it if I can.

Of course, more than five pages may be needed to prepare you to defend these strategies publicly. My book touches on legal and political strategy, history, a strategy for unity among prolifers, and Scripture.

My book (the paperback is free to you; the PDF is free to anybody) contains

  • a model 175 page legal brief that analyzes abortion cases, that exhaustively supports the above claims;
  • the legal and political reasons prolife bills must preview the irrefutable legal argument; and the legal, political, and Biblical reasons a fundamental attack on abortion must not, initially, address the "three exceptions" or contraception
  • the kinds of prolife cases that have created irrational baby killing case law, why prolife majorities didn’t support them, and why review of a state law is our best hope of attracting sufficient prolife support to educate the public to recognize when judges dodge the irrefutable evidence.

I beg you: make courts squarely address the unanimously, legally recognized facts.

June 13, 2019

(Sent to Alabama)

Your HB 314 “Alabama Human Life Protection Act”, signed into law May 15, is most of an answer to my prayer. It is what is urged by my book, “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”, which I offered to Alabama Republican lawmakers (whose email addresses are listed online) January 5, 15, and 22. (The offer is still open. Just ask. Paperback, Kindle or PDF.)

It outlaws most abortions, with serious penalties, and includes a “personhood” declaration that will help defend it in court. No other state has done that since Rhode Island in 1973. Every other state asks courts “is this restriction a ‘substantial obstacle’ to a mother's constitutionally protected right to murder her very own baby?” (Or words to that effect.) Your law challenges courts to answer “is legal abortion a ‘substantial obstacle’ to a baby’s constitutionally protected right to live?”

For that reason, for the sake of a long overdue direct challenge to legal abortion, it is imperative that your law, and not one from another state, be the next prolife case chosen by SCOTUS. I don’t know if you even think your law can actually take effect and be the law which will force courts to end legal abortion. I found news article which take comfort from Governor Ivey’s statement about obeying courts that no one in Alabama actually thinks this will be that law. (Here and here.) But I believe this can be that law. But there is a critical omission in your Findings of Facts which needs to be corrected in HB314’s defense in court.

My analysis of what you have accomplished is published at ipatriot.com. It is also posted on a wiki, where your interaction with the article can be interleaved with the article, by the exact point you want to address.

I write to beg you to use your influence to make sure the defense includes critical evidence which your Findings omit. Of course the defense has not been made public, so you may wonder why I presume the defense attorneys do not already plan to include whatever is needed. It is because your omission implies the same rationale explicated in last year’s Foundation for Moral Law amicus.

The omission I refer to is that Alabama’s Findings cite no other fact-finding authority to establish unborn “personhood” than its own. That is like sending soldiers into battle with only one bullet. Which would be forgivable if their commanders only had one bullet. But Alabama could have cited additionally the 37 other states and Congress, (in “unborn victims of violence” laws), and from abortion prevention cases, the dozens of juries which acquitted based on the Necessity Defense (“it was necessary to save human lives”) and thousands of expert witnesses in those trials (typically doctors describing early life).

The FML amicus argues that only Alabama’s view is relevant, because each individual state can make up its own mind whether babies are “persons”! That would be possibly logical were the courts below SCOTUS correct in saying Roe made babies non-persons “as a matter of law”, making the FACT that babies are fully human, making abortion murder, “irrelevant”. But Roe said the opposite, and the contradiction between SCOTUS and lower courts on this point needs to be underlined: the fact governs the law, not the law the fact: and once THAT fact is “established”, then “of course” ALL states, not just those that individually decide which humans to count as “persons”, must outlaw abortion again. Christians should demand no less than Roe demands.

The theory in the FML amicus that states can individually decide which humans are “persons” is tangled up with its history of how popular prolife “personhood” legal theory developed. But neither Roe nor any subsequent SCOTUS case said “persons” are only a subgroup of “humans”. “Recognizably human” was part of Roe’s very definition of “human”.

Roe’s confusion was not over some esoteric difference between “humans” and “persons”. It was not over giving “law” the power to decide which humans get to be the “persons” protected by the 14th Amendment – if law could do that, Alabama could legalize slavery again! Roe’s confusion was over the fraudulent illustrations in Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary (specifically cited in Roe and reproduced on p. 166 of my book) which doctored illustrations of young babies to look like piglets and bunnies. They weren’t “recognizably human”.

Modern medicine can easily update that ignorance. Your findings provide a start on that update, but did you notice the 11th circuit last year accepted even stronger medical evidence yet still shot down your dismemberment law?

The 11th circuit talked like it hated to do that but Roe made them. That is a lie. But HB314’s defense needs to explain why it is a lie or it will happen again. Stare Decisis places equal weight on the basis for a holding as it does the holding, and stare decisis also calls for overturning precedent when its factual basis is shown to be erroneous, as Kavanaugh pointed out in his confirmation hearings. (See partial transcript starting p. XXXVIII of my book.) The 11th ignored that. To follow one part of Roe, and ignore the criteria in another part for how long the one part may remain in effect, is to violate every part of Roe. To still follow a holding ruled outdated by an adjacent holding is to follow no holding.

HB314’s defense needs a better understanding of Roe’s notorious Footnote 54 than the FML brief presented. The FML brief exhausted much of its precious word count making the case that the dismemberment law had none of the exceptions which Roe said undermined the claim that babies are humans/persons. Ironic, since HB314, the following year, reintroduces those same exceptions: mothers are not prosecuted for their abortions, and abortions are allowed to save mothers.

The Footnote 54 standard is impossible politically, ridiculously hypocritical legally, and unjust Biblically. It cannot be, should not be, and never has been accommodated. Fortunately it is not nearly the legal obstacle that prolifers imagine. Judges merely need to be reminded of what they already know. Human laws, as well as God's laws, are full of exceptions as reality, justice, and prosecutorial needs require.

There are several lesser points I beg you to consider. My complete review of your law is posted on a wiki and at ipatriot.com. As a comparison with a state prolife law without nearly the threat to legal abortion, see my analysis of the May 24 “Kitchen Sink” Missouri law, also posted on a wiki,

I am concerned that Alabama’s case must not wait until it reaches the Supreme Court before it wins. It has to win before the Federal District Court. That means these weaknesses in the apparent defense need to be strengthened immediately. Because if Alabama loses in the District Court, the 11th Circuit has already explained last year that “Our role is to apply the law the Supreme Court has laid down to the facts the district court found.” So the 11th Circuit will likely affirm the district judgment. Then it will go to the Supreme Court, which this coming year will have what? a dozen? cases to pick from, none of which bring the Life issue. The Supreme Court would rather take one of those and then say that is the abortion case we will decide this year, sorry, Alabama.

I have given this information to Rep. Terri Collins, lead sponsor of HB314, and Matthew Clark, author of last year’s FML amicus, and Judge Roy Moore, but they have not responded. I am oppressively conscious that I am more of a nobody than Elihu in Job 32:6-7, to presume to inform America’s most notoriously pro-God judge about an opportunity to end abortion that is slipping away. But it is as obvious to me that Alabama’s HB314 has an inadequate defense as it was obvious to the little boy that the emperor had no clothes, so the self interest pointed out in Ezekiel 3:18-20 drives me to try again, even if no one listens. But please do not let this opportunity slip away because you have gotten 90% of the way to the finish line and you assume it should safely coast the rest of the way through from here! Please, if I am wrong, I beg you, I know it takes time: explain to me where I am wrong, so I can either correct my presentation, or if I am so far wrong that I can never get it right, I can give up, leave life-saving to the experts, and go sedate myself with TV reruns for the rest of my “golden years”.

July 17, 2019

(Sent to Iowa lawmakers)

I know I am an unimpressive messenger, but I believe God has arranged for you the opportunity to receive exactly what you’ve been praying for for years.

What if God really has enabled you to start the legal movement to outlaw abortion in a way that will not only survive courts but will force courts to rule that all states must similarly outlaw abortion? And within a year or two of when the legislature passes all three measures I identify? What if my book which I offered you free in several emails several months ago, “How states can end legal abortion in a way that survives courts”, actually does accurately describe an opportunity prepared for you by God? (That link is to a PDF free to anybody. I will send you a paperback or Kindle if you ask, which are also available on Amazon.)

Do you pray for less than that? Do you scale down your prayers to what experts tell you is possible? Like getting courts to allow one more abortion restriction (which they might do if they decide it is not a “substantial burden” on “a woman’s right to choose”), while we all wait for another Supreme Court Justice to die so Roe will be overturned, leaving infanticide only in a few states?

This year marks my 30th year of writing about prolife legal defenses, a mission for which the Des Moines Redstar has shown no respect. Am I completely wrong? Crazy? Please make your case that I am, if you can, as eloquently and as well sourced as you can, so I can spend the rest of my days zoned out in front of my TV like people my age are expected to do. A part of me that feels tired will be very grateful. But God gives each of us some ability to understand the opportunities He has orchestrated for us, and to encourage each other to walk through those doors together. If you can find no fault in the opportunity I outline, please study it this month and be ready to act on it in January, with the goal of ending legal abortion by next Christmas.

In case you don’t feel competent to evaluate these legal opportunities, please ask Martin Cannon for his analysis of my book. You entrusted him with the defense of your heartbeat bill. He has had my book since March. Ask him if he has reached a decision about the opportunity I outline. His office phone number, as listed on his Heartbeat defense briefs, is 712-545-9433.

I am not against the “no right to abortion” amendment to the Iowa constitution which you are considering. But please don’t let an opportunity to eliminate the “fundamental right” status of abortion in Iowa distract you from also eliminating the federal “undue burden” standard, which was turned into virtually the same thing by Hellerstedt. See Four Drawbacks of a No-Right-to-Abortion State Constitutional Amendment#The_Virtually_Identical_Federal_Obstacle Don’t let your work on an amendment which courts could still overturn distract you from passing a law containing evidence and argument which no judge will be able to squarely address and keep abortion legal. See “Four Drawbacks of a ‘No Right to Abortion’ State Constitutional Amendment” for my other concerns.

October 28, 2019

(Sent to Iowa lawmakers)

I pray that you are frustrated enough by (1) how decisively Judge Huppert trashed our Heartbeat Bill, and by (2) the daunting goal of a constitutional amendment which even if passed in a couple of years and even if not overturned, will not eliminate almost the same obstacle to saving lives in federal courts, to study a bill which will be virtually impossible to dismiss, which will end legal abortion, and potentially within about a year in Iowa, before spreading across America.

Successfully ending legal abortion
in every state,
in close to a year,
requires a law:
  • containing evidence which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal anywhere: that unborn babies are real people – established by the consensus of court-recognized factfinders: juries, expert witnesses, 38 states, judges, and Congress;
  • containing argument that addresses myths and misunderstandings about abortion jurisprudence;
  • that is a substantial restriction, ruling out the usual defense for lesser restrictions (such as a 3 month murder season, sanitizing the murder rooms, or making sure moms know they are murderers): that they are not a “substantial” “undue burden” on a woman’s right to murder.;
  • free of any excuse for judges to dodge the evidence. A perfect law that addresses everything from exceptions to contraception multiplies a judge’s opportunity to say “we don’t need to reach the issue of when life begins because the law fails on a lesser issue.” A simple yet substantial restriction, with “findings” that address the legal obstacles, will survive courts, freeing lawmakers to work out the challenging details; and
  • that orders courts to “expedite” any review, and/or that enacts the measures on page XXXIII of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”.

Please review this opportunity which I believe qualifies as an answer from God to prolife prayers at:

<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts". Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send you a free copy. Free PDF: www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf

<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity: www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life

November 15, 2019

(Sent to North Dakota, Arizona, Idaho, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arkansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi, Nebraska, Missouri, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, Kentucky, Kansas. Pending: Alabama, Iowa. Pending on web forms since email addresses are not published: Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio)

What if outlawing abortion in a way that survives courts, in a year, really were a “mountain” targeted by God for us to pull down together, but prolifers are too busy, discouraged, or intimidated, to examine whether the opportunity is real? (I began emailing this opportunity to you, along with 2800 other Republican lawmakers in the 30 states where Republicans control both chambers, a year ago. I have discussed these ideas in Iowa for 8 years.)

The book I offer you, at my own cost, explains how we can reach that goal. It explains how ALL of the uncontested evidence that babies are people, already filling thousands of court records, put there by juries, expert witnesses (doctors, geneticists), 38 states, and Congress, is evidence that no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal. It explains how to make sure judges squarely address it.

It explains why legal abortion can’t be challenged without a “substantial” restriction of abortion, ruling out the usual defense for lesser restrictions: (such as a 3 month murder season ["heartbeat" ban], sanitizing the murder rooms ["medical standards"], or making sure moms know they are murderers ["informed consent"): that they are not a “substantial” “undue burden” on a woman’s right to murder. Yet the restriction must also be simple, to avoid giving a judge an excuse to dodge “when life begins” by getting tangled up in lesser details.

It suggests measures that will force courts to rule quickly, beginning with a requirement that any review of our law must be “expedited”, since lives are lost with each day that courts delay.

More details are at the links below, which are to the sections of a summary of my book posted at a wiki where you can reason with others about each section:

(The Enforcement Section)

The restriction must be substantial, yet simple. An example.

(The Legislative Findings of Facts Section)

The Consensus of EVERY Category of Court-Recognized "Finders of Facts" is Evidence which No Judge can Squarely Address and Keep Abortion Legal

The Overlooked Authority of Court-Recognized Facts

Roe did NOT say Babies are Non-Persons “as a Matter of Law” Making Irrelevant the FACT that they are Fully Human

Courts Accept Legislative Statements of Facts

Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Evidence of Life

Reality Trumps Rulings - "Stare Decisis" exception: a "mistake of fact"

Not only Physically Human from Fertilization, but Souls have no Known Pre-conscious Stage

Myth Busters

Congress Already Enacted a Personhood Law - as Strong as a Constitutional Amendment - 15 years ago!

Roe Never Denied that All Humans are "Persons"

Roe's Rationale has NOT been Replaced

SCOTUS did NOT say Personhood Laws are Impotent

“Exceptions” do NOT Mitigate or Undermine Personhood Assertions

Conclusions

“Abortion is Legal” no Longer

The Constitution Requires States to Outlaw Abortion

The Evidence that Any State may Cite, that Requires Outlawing Abortion, Compels All States

Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations

I pray you will not let another year go by without seizing this opportunity.

<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts". Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send you a copy at my cost. Kindle, I can set up in a day; a paperback, delivery takes maybe a week. PDF, a minute. Free PDF: www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf

<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity: www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach

December 24, 2019

When there are thousands of witnesses to murder, what prosecutor would call only two?

Abortion is murder. It kills innocent people. That is the testimony of literally thousands of court-recognized fact finders scattered across over 60,000 court records, in addition to the testimony of 38 states, Congress, and every judge who has taken a position. No legal authority ever said "life begins" any later than fertilization.

All that is asked of my book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts", is that states embed ALL the court-recognized evidence that babies are people, in the "findings of facts" of their prolife laws. Along with untying a few legal knots such as:

Roe didn’t say babies aren’t “persons”. Roe said “the judiciary...is not in a position to speculate”, but if that (fact) is ever “established” then “of course” legal abortion must end – meaning in all states. If the consensus within every category of court-recognized fact-finders is still not enough for judges to know a fact, it is impossible for any judge to know anything. Therefore, no judge can squarely address that evidence and keep abortion legal, and no judge can safely dodge that evidence to the extent prolifers are watching.

It is the fact that unborn babies are living human children that makes killing them legally recognizable as 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 an even 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!

I pray you will not let another year go by without doing this for Jesus. Matthew 25:31-46.

A Person from conception

<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts". Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send you a copy at my cost. Paperback delivery: about a week. (Tell me the best address.) Kindle, about a day. PDF, about a minute. Free PDF: www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf

<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages (presenting the proposed bill language) where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity: ]http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life]

<> Answers to Lawmakers' Objections (So far, the objections have not been to the legal correctness of this opportunity, but to the effort it takes to investigate it. About 50 lawmakers have the book so far.)


In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach

January 10, 2020

This is not a substitute for the "no right to abortion" state constitutional amendment, but you can do this also, which does not require passing the Amendment first:)

Successfully ending legal abortion in all states, in a year, requires a law that:

  • includes evidence that babies are people which no judge can squarely address and keep abortion legal;
  • lacks complexity in which judges can hide from evidence (see p. LXII of my book);
  • addresses myths about abortion precedents;
  • substantially reduces abortion, denying that murder must be protected from any “undue burden”;
  • orders courts to “expedite” any review, “because lives are lost with each day that courts delay”, and/or that enacts the measures on page XXXIII.

Attached: a bill meeting these requirements, ready to forward to the LSB. "The 'Outlawing Abortion In Compliance With Roe' Act".

<> My book, "How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts". Subtitle: Court recognized fact finders have unanimously established what Roe said would end legal abortion. Paperback/Kindle can be ordered from Amazon, or let me know you would like to read it and I will send you a copy at my cost. Paperback delivery: about a week. (Tell me the best address.) Kindle, about a day. PDF, about a minute. Free PDF: www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlawAbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf

<> A wiki article of the first 25 or so pages (presenting the proposed bill language) where you can discuss, comment, vote, and even edit this opportunity. This comprises the content of the attachment, plus brief explanations: www.savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/A_Law_Designed_to_Force_Courts_to_Address_Evidence_of_Life

<> Outlawing Abortion FAQ's: answers to lawmakers' objections (So far, the objections have not been to the legal correctness of this opportunity, but to the effort it takes to investigate it. About 50 lawmakers have the book so far across several states.)

In Jesus' Name (Col 3:17)

Dave Leach

January 11, 2020

Thank you for accepting my book, "How States Can Outlaw Abortion In A Way That Survives Courts". 17 Iowa lawmakers now have a copy (I have not sent any copies unsolicited.) Attached is my latest edition of the bill language I propose, (which may not be in the copy of my book which you have), in an .rtf file - just the bill without explanations, ready to submit to the LSB.

I am thrilled to be able to report that Martin Cannon, (who defended Iowa's Heartbeat law in court) who has had a copy last March and with whom I have had sporadic contact since before that, is now seriously discussing with others how to use this information. I don't assume that means he will endorse all of it, nor do I assume he is committed to any of it; but for a lawyer of his stature to have this information all that time and not yet rule it out, gives me hope. (I will send him a copy of this email as a check that I am not mischaracterizing his statements to me or reporting more than he wants reported.)

But the political strategy I believe is required to get this through courts includes widespread understanding among prolifers about the actual legal arguments involved. I know that nonlawyers, and even lawyers who don't happen to have prolife defenses as their specialty, HATE to think about taking a public stand on legal arguments! And yet the problem is that especially in abortion prevention cases, judges have notoriously dodged evidence of Life when it was presented, in violation of constitutional rights of the defendants and even in violation of Roe. They could, because not even many prolifers wanted abortion to end through one of those embarrassing cases. I expect judges to do that again. But this time, in a review of a state law which will not embarrass the prolife mainstream, a significant number of prolifers need to be able to recognize if a future judge does this again, and to understand the magnitude of the irrationality and lawlessness, in order to be angry enough to hold judges accountable. That is why I am praying that you, having this book, will study this opportunity until you don't have to support it because of what someone else tells you whom you trust, but because you can clearly see for yourself that the evidence is so irrefutable that it will be impossible for any judge to refute it logically and lawfully, or even within the range of irrationality that voters have become numbed to tolerate.

I do not want this project to distract from the "No right to abortion" constitutional amendment. Some have expressed the concern to me that ANY other prolife measures would do that, as if there is only so much prolife gas, so every drop that goes into my tank will be a drop taken from yours. My belief is that the "legislative findings" in this book are not only compelling in courts of law, but in the Court of Public Opinion. My hope, therefore, is that these findings are so clear, and easy to understand, that even if this bill doesn't make it into law this year, this public education will put more gas in every prolife tank, will turn many Democrats into Republicans, many nonbelievers into Christians, and will fire up voters to pass your constitutional amendment in a landslide when it gets on the ballot - that is, if abortion is still legal by then because this bill still hasn't been passed.

January 20, 2020

I pray you have looked over and thought about the opportunity I have emailed you about over the past year, (attached: bill language only), to outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts.

The attachment includes a bonus: a way the legislature can regulate judicial review of its laws.

Surely it is well within the authority the legislature is given by the Iowa Constitution, to limit judicial review to the full panel of the Supreme Court (a single district judge shouldn’t have the power to overturn the deliberations of 150 legal experts), to require the Court to rule within 3 months, and to order justices to appear in a public hearing to discuss the overturning of a law with a panel selected by the legislature. (The attachment lists the phrases from the Iowa Constitution which give legislatures this authority.)

If that passes along with the bill I propose to outlaw abortion, surely judges will become a lot less arrogant and a lot more reasonable, and legal abortion will officially end in about a year from when the legislature acts.

Please tell me where I am wrong. If I am not wrong, please tell me these goals would be answers to your prayers as well as mine and you will vote for these measures when they come before you. (Or, at least, that you will not vote against them before you have investigated and determined that they really aren't the opportunity I say they are.)

December 10, 2020

(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)

Will you support these three goals?

  • Restraining lawmaking judges with the blessing of the Iowa Constitution.
  • Outlawing abortion in a way that will survive courts.
  • Creating covid cover for the governor’s covid decisions, by inserting in Emergency Powers law an online response to covid controversies.

Restraining Lawmaking Judges

The bill last January: Iowa SSB3181 (Thank you, Senator Zaun, for introducing it)

This bill restrains lawmaking judges in 5 ways:

1. A single district judge can't overturn a law.

2. It takes 5 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a law.

3. The Court has to rule in 3 months.

4. The legislature may then compel designated justices to attend a public hearing to debate the constitutionality of the law.

5. The legislature may overturn the invalidation by a 2/3 vote, leaving the last word with better informed voters.

The official bill is posted at Iowa SSB3181 . It is posted at Judicial Accountability Act: How Legislatures can stop judges from legislating with more explanations, discussion, and FAQ’s, on a wiki where you can add discussion IN the article.

Outlawing Abortion

Here is the question I ask you to present to the U.S. Supreme Court through the right kind of case, created by the right kind of law:

“Hasn’t the fact that all unborn babies are humans/persons been sufficiently established by juries, expert witnesses, state legislatures, individual judges, Congress, and the absence of any contrary affirmation, to invoke Roe’s ruling that state legislatures and courts must ‘of course’ now protect their 14th Amendment rights?”

The defense does not seek to overturn Roe, but it relies on the part of Roe that implicitly classifies “when life begins” as a fact question, implicitly inviting resolution by court-recognized fact finders, and makes establishment of that fact dispositive grounds for outlawing abortion. It is simply impossible for any judge to squarely address this overwhelming, unrefuted, irrefutable, legally recognizable evidence and keep abortion legal.

How do I know? Because in three cases I helped appeal to SCOTUS, judges and expensive baby killer attorneys were unable to refute these arguments without first pretending our defense was something entirely different and much easier to ridicule. In one case, for Regina Dinwiddie charged under FACE for “sidewalk counseling” with a bullhorn, two 60-day “extensions of time” were requested by Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno to respond to my brief, after which Reno dismissed the charges so the SCOTUS appeal would be “moot”.

But to get courts to squarely address the evidence, law, and precedent, the case has to be created by a legislature passing a law, not by a defendant breaking a law. The problem with the latter is that hardly anyone wants “lawbreakers”, even if they save thousands of unborn lives, to prevail in court, so judges face no political pressure in dodging irrefutable arguments with “straw men”. A legislature, with irrefutable arguments embedded in the law, is harder for a judge to insult. Especially if the “Restraining Lawmaking Judges” bill is in place, it will be impossible for judges to dodge the arguments, facts, and precedent; and abortion will actually be successfully outlawed, and abortuaries closed, within about a year of passage of the law.

Links: My book, “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. Pdf. Let me know if you would like a paperback. Its opening pages are a summary, and contain proposed bill language. Related articles. I began offering this book to lawmakers just two years ago. Seven Iowa lawmakers have a copy, and about 50 in other states. (I began presenting this plan to Iowa lawmakers eight years ago.)

Covid Response

The real covid problem is that there is NO place in America where dissenting doctors can interact with mainstream doctors, in language the public can follow, so that their claims and counterclaims can interact, balance one another, and correct one another, so that consensus has a better chance, and Iowa can help defuse public skepticism about the value of obeying our governor.

Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have guranteed that THEY will never be such a place, by simply censoring expert testimony they don't agree with! CDC reports are obscured by technical language, and the CDC website does not allow dissenting doctors to fully articulate their objections and then face scrutiny, in the manner that courts establish facts by hearing from expert testimony on all sides.

So the solution is for ANY hospital, governor, or legislature to simply create a website that invites the posting of all evidence, with a rank boost for those who address counter claims, and present that knowledge base as what is considered in deciding policy.

WHO’s Jeff Angelo remarked yesterday that courts are increasingly skeptical of governors’ covid restrictions. The courtroom question, I would think, is how closely these restrictions come to infringing “fundamental rights”. If courts decide no “fundamental rights” have been harmed yet, a restriction only needs to have a “rational basis”. But when courts evaluate whether restrictions can restrain “fundamental rights”, then a restriction has to be backed by evidence that the restriction actually works, Angelo pointed out.

In courts, expert witnesses on all sides interact with each other, in language which can be followed without medical dictionaries. By creating such a forum, Iowa can not only defuse public skepticism about the value of obeying our governor, but by assembling better-tested science, and conforming orders more closely to science, Iowa can defuse any impetus towards litigation.

God bless you for reading this far! Please tell me if you support these goals.

December 26, 2020

(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)

Do you care about restraining lawmaking judges with the blessing of the Iowa Constitution? (The bill's "findings of facts" lays out its authority through the Iowa Constitution.) The bill last January: Iowa SSB3181 (Thank you, Senator Zaun, for introducing it)

This bill restrains lawmaking judges in 5 ways:

1. A single district judge can't overturn a law.

2. It takes 5 of the 7 justices of the Supreme Court to overturn a law.

3. The Court has to rule in 3 months.

4. The legislature may then compel designated justices to attend a public hearing to debate the constitutionality of the law.

5. The legislature may overturn the invalidation by a 2/3 vote, leaving the last word with better informed voters.

The official bill is posted at Iowa SSB3181 . It is posted at Judicial Accountability Act: How Legislatures can stop judges from legislating with more explanations, discussion, and FAQ’s, on a wiki where you can add discussion IN the article.

This limit on overturning laws by judges is part of the strategy for outlawing abortion in my book, "“How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”. Pdf. Abortion can be successfully outlawed without this measure, but this measure will make it happen faster and more easily. Bonus issue: Covid Controversy Solution. http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/God's_Coronavirus_Cure_in_3_Verses#A_POLITICAL_SOLUTION

January 11, 2021

(Sent to Iowa Republican lawmakers)

May I know whether you support or oppose last year's Iowa SSB3181 which would limit judicial review of laws? (The bill's "findings of facts" lays out its authority through the Iowa Constitution. See additional explanations.)

Do you support or oppose a strategy for completely and successfully outlawing abortion in about a year? (See attached bill with brief explanations. For comprehensive explanations see my book, posted as a Pdf.)

23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)23:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)~~

If the "no fundamental right to abortion" constitutional amendment is the only prolife measure you think should be considered this year:

I do not oppose this goal. What concerns me is allowing it to displace study of other solutions that are (1) easier, (2) faster, (3) just as certain to not be overturned by a judge, and (4) that will "substantially restrict" abortion.

1. Easier. As you know, passing a constitutional amendment is very hard. Requiring the next legislature to also approve it requires another Republican election victory, which is made less certain by how much election fraud Democrats have committed with not that much Republican resistance, which puts the executive and legislative branches of the federal government under their control as they promise to pack courts. What will they do with future state elections?

2. Faster. As you know, a constitutional amendment will take a minimum of 3 more years, added to the past year during which the Amendment displaced consideration of other prolife solutions. The opportunity I outline could actually end legal abortion in about a year - especially if combined with the restraint of judicial review.

3. As certain to survive courts. I trust Martin Cannon's judgment that his wording will be safe in court. But the fact remains that judges have authority under the 14th Amendment to overturn even state constitutional amendments that violate "fundamental rights", and they have notoriously done so many times. So I wouldn't think the safety of an Amendment would be absolute. This is where you will have to read my proposal and judge for yourself, but I am still waiting to be shown how any judge could squarely address the legal arguments in my "finding of facts", and keep abortion legal. For example, my Finding #6 says "The 14th Amendment, Section 5, authorizes Congress, not courts, to define 'fundamental rights'.” And #5 observes, "the uncontradicted consensus of 38 states and Congress...that unborn babies are fully human...is legally conclusive"

4. Restricts abortion "substantially". The 1992 Casey precedent said no law can "substantially restrict" abortion. The Amendment being considered would leave that obstacle to saving lives in place. Even Iowa's heartbeat law was presented in court as not being a "substantial restriction" at all; it would merely pressure mothers to find out more quickly that they are pregnant so they can kill their babies before they are "persons" with a detectable heartbeat. Evidence that babies are people is irrelevant when the law's defense is that it is not a "substantial restriction". Only two states have plainly, openly restricted abortion: Rhode Island in 1973, and Alabama in 2019, smacked down last April 16, but neither of them used the Findings of Facts that I propose.

January 17, 2021

(Sent only to members of the Judiciary Committees of the Iowa House and Senate, and two Senate leaders)


Please introduce “Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Roe” (PDF and rtf, attached) that will successfully outlaw abortion. With it, please resubmit SSB3181 from 2020, that will bring judicial review of laws under reasonable limits, for drafting and renumbering. (The first two pages of the attachments are for the bill drafters. The rest are documentation for lawmakers. See Judicial Accountability Act for FAQ’s about SSB3181.)

OR have them drafted as a private bill, not public, so that you can then contact anyone whose expertise you value that unless you hear from them that there is ANY legal error in them, you are planning to make them public as soon as they are drafted, and you will appreciate their support, because the more successful outlawing abortion is legally, the more you expect the rage of those invested in murder.

And if anyone identifies a legal problem with it, will you please forward the problem to me? So far no one has told me about any such problem, and I have shown it to a LOT of people.

Surely another year need not pass while a way to successfully end the slaughter of millions remains unexamined. Surely God calls us to much urgent action even when our knowledge is not perfect. Surely God tests our willingness to listen to the least of us by offering some of His answers to our prayers through people lacking in the world’s credentials. (Like when He sent Jesus. Also see James 2:3-8.) Surely a way to end the bloodiest curse against America's survival merits at least as much attention as bills which will save no lives.

Especially this year, when America's survival as a Republic whose leaders are elected by voting majorities seems more in doubt than it ever has, and as we turn to God with confidence that He has left us a way back – though always through the path of repentance, and as we examine ourselves for sins which may have merited God's judgment.

As you know, the closer a bill introduction is to the funnel, the easier it is to excuse inaction because there "isn't enough time". That is a lie. God, who made time, made enough of it for us to obey Him.

January 18, 2021

(This was not emailed to anyone, but was submitted as a public comment regarding the subcommittee hearing of an Amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would nullify a 2018 ruling of the Iowa Supreme Court that there is a "fundamental right to abortion" in the Iowa Constitution.)


I am happy to see Reps. Holt and Osmundson honored to launch this prolife bill. It is the kind of true honor that will go into your eternal trophy case, because of the cost you are willing to pay to do good. I am familiar with the names you will be called, the attacks on your reputation, your business, your family.

Acts 5:40 ... and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. 41 And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name. 42 And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ.

It is astonishing to me how the deathers respond to so remote a threat to their crimes as this Amendment, as if their entire industry, families, religion, and purpose for life are being mowed down by invading aliens. It encourages me to anticipate that when you introduce my bill that will actually outlaw virtually all abortions successfully in a year or so, they will be utterly unable to leave it alone, but will attack it with enough fury to educate millions about the opportunity.

Will they attack with more fury than over this Amendment? Hard to imagine, since every conceivable insult and label that anyone can imagine, they already exhaust at the slightest affront to their holiness. But they will try.

Of course, the greater lifesaving impact I foresee is because the Findings I outline are more profound attacks on the legal legitimacy of legal abortion than have been previously made. For example, the Amendment does not challenge SCOTUS' precedent that no state law can "substantially restrict" abortion, or have for its purpose any reduction of abortion. My Findings show how that precedent was based on errors of facts and must give way to today's consensus of fact finders which requires the "collapse" of legal abortion. Nor can there be, in Iowa or anywhere in the world, a "fundamental right" to what is legally established as, in fact, the murder of fully human beings.

The very consideration of these Findings by lawmakers able to codify them is really a powerful threat to legal abortion not only in courts of law, later, but in The Court of Public Opinion, now.

The information I outline has been available for years. But it takes years for the parade-goers admiring The Emperor's Clothes to trust their doubting eyes and believe this Mountain that Jesus promised we can pull down, Matthew 17:20, really will fall. The screaming of baby killers over any threat to their trade is just the prod God can use to get His People to blink and look carefully at His Answers, and see how real they are.

My legal credentials of course cannot justify my confidence in this opportunity. The basis of my confidence is no one showing me legal errors in it after years of presenting it to judges, prolife lawyers, Banned Parenthood lawyers, news reporters, and lawmakers. If someone will do that for me, I will go away and stop bothering everybody.

January 22, 2021, 48th year of legal abortion

(Emailed to Iowa Republican lawmakers)


There is good reason to pass the “no fundamental right to abortion” amendment.

But don’t do it because you think before that happens it will be impossible to substantially restrict abortion. Because you CAN, and should, substantially restrict abortion, in a way that will survive courts, right now.

A leading Iowa prolife attorney encouraged me last season to be like the “persistent widow” of Luke 18:1-8. Even more fatal to my likability, Hebrews 10:24 tells me to “provoke one another to love and good works.”

The judge whom the “persistent widow” annoyed didn’t want to give her justice. Can it possibly be that prolifers don’t want a way to actually successfully end legal abortion in about a year?

Can it actually be that a constitutional amendment strategy that displaces other prolife legislation for a minimum of four more years – and which would leave in place the Supreme Court precedent that no prolife law can be a “substantial” restriction of abortion nor have for its purpose the reduction of abortion – is all prolifers want?

If you see problems with this opportunity, won’t you tell me so I can stop annoying people about it and I can have friends again? If you can’t identify any problems, won’t you act on it and bring an end to legal abortion this year? Or if you don’t trust your own judgment about such a legal strategy, won’t you ask those you trust to tell you what’s wrong with it, because if they can’t you will most certainly introduce and support it immediately?

The first two of the attached pages are the bill outlawing abortion; the remaining pages are explanations. Shortening the court review time to about a year would be accomplished by also enacting SSB3181 from last year, which would put reasonable limits on court review of laws. That bill, and explanations, are posted at http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/ Judicial_Accountability_Act:_How_Legislatures_can_stop_judges_from_legislating

In Jesus’ Name (Col 3:17)

Summary of the legal challenge. Lower appellate precedent is unanimous: the consensus of court-recognized fact-finders that babies are in fact fully human “persons” is irrelevant – therefore inadmissible, because Roe made babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”.

Roe said the opposite: that when it is “established” that babies are real people, then “of course” abortion will be legally recognizable as murder. Since Roe, every court-recognized fact finder that has taken a position has unanimously said protectable human “life begins” at fertilization. None have said “life begins” any later. The fact is “established”, making abortion legally recognizable as murder.

There can be no “fundamental right” to murder, Roe said, adding that they would never have legalized abortion if they thought it would kill people. Therefore, the Iowa Supreme Court’s finding of a “fundamental right to abortion” violates the 14th Amendment according to an honest reading of Roe v. Wade. In fact, the 14th Amendment requires every state to outlaw abortion.

These points need to be made in court, in a review of a law that “substantially” restricts abortion. Judges in prolife cases have a bad habit of dodging the evidence, so these legal arguments and facts need to be in the law’s “findings of facts”, to force judges to quote them in their rulings, and then to squarely address them.

No state has presented these “findings of facts” in court. Look over these 12 findings, and consider whether it is possible for any judge to squarely address them, and keep abortion legal. I don’t believe any can.

Public education is needed to help ensure that judges will squarely address the findings. If SSB3181 from 2020 is also passed, judges will be under enormous pressure to squarely address the Findings.


James Bonnett

Don Burgmaier

Ben Clark

Brian Kreczler

Dave Leach

February 5, 2021

Now that the “no fundamental right to abortion” Amendment (HJR5) is through the House and faces no serious danger in the Senate, so that you needn’t be afraid that taking up more aggressive prolife bills will distract from that bill, will you look again at a strategy of “How States can Outlaw Abortion in a Way that Survives Courts”?

Will you act before the February 12 funnel for bills to be introduced, so that this opportunity to completely end the slaughter, which has been presented to Iowa lawmakers for each of the past 10 years, and which does not require a constitutional amendment to succeed, will be put in motion so that the slaughter will not have to wait yet another year for lawmakers to think about it?

Or, if you see some irreparable legal problem with it justifying completely ignoring it, won’t you please let us know what it is? May we meet with you to discuss it?

Surely its goal: the successful end of legal abortion in about a year from introduction of a bill, is the prayer of every prolifer. We’ve been told for 48 years that such a prayer is impossible. But what if God has made it possible, and prolifers are too busy to investigate whether God’s answer to our prayers is real?

Attached is a one-page summary of the opportunity, which explains the obstacle to saving lives which will remain in the U.S. Supreme Court even after the Iowa constitution is amended, and also explains why this opportunity to end the slaughter is available right now, with the law and precedent before us right now. For more supporting documentation see my book, “How states can outlaw abortion in a way that survives courts.” Contact me for a paperback copy.

I pray for your feedback.

(Attachment resubmitted: "Summary of the Legal Challenge")

February 10, 2021

How can we get courts to acknowledge the evidence that unborn babies of people are people?

For starters, by creating a case where that evidence is relevant. By passing a law that substantially restricts abortion.

And then by admitting in court that the law will substantially restrict abortion, but it must stand because evidence proves that unborn babies of people are people.

Iowa's Heartbeat Law would have substantially restricted abortion, in the understanding of most prolifers, but the argument before Judge Huppert was that it would not prevent even one abortion! It would only make mothers find out sooner whether they were pregnant, so they can kill their babies before their heartbeats can be detected - before we know they are human people.

The evidence that babies of human mothers are humans is irrelevant in a court review of a law that does not substantially restrict abortion, such as a requirement that baby killers post a warning that pills don't always kill. Review of such a law won't much hinge on whether babies are people.

States have been afraid to "substantially" restrict abortion since Casey, in 1992, said no state could do that. And since lower courts unanimously have said Roe v. Wade made evidence that babies of humans are humans "irrelevant".

So that entrenched myth must be disposed of before courts will acknowledge that evidence. The law's "Findings of Facts" need to point out that SCOTUS never said such a stupid thing, Roe v. Wade said the opposite, and even if Roe hadn't, what Roe said was obvious is still obvious: once the evidence establishes that babies are people, legalizing their murder is as unthinkable as it is unconstitutional.

These legal arguments (and a few others) must be embedded in the law's "findings of facts", because (1) rulings will then be required to quote them, which will make it VERY hard for judges to dodge them, (2) defense lawyers will have to raise them, and (3) it will be easier for the legislature to pass the law when there is a vision of how to get it through courts.

The first two pages of the attached solution is ready to submit to the bill drafters. the rest is explanation of the legal obstacle addressed by each finding.

Dave Leach <> The Partnership Machine, Inc. <> 4110 SW 9th St <> Des Moines IA 50315 <> 515-244-3711

(Attachment: resubmission of "Outlawing Abortion in Compliance with Roe Act"

February 12, 2021

don’t know how much of what I write to you this morning is what God wants you to hear. All I can be certain of is that after laying in bed over an hour, reviewing all the responsibilities and opportunities before me, pouring out my heart to God, I can no longer think of sleep.

I must get up and write to you again, on this final day of the deadline for introducing new bills, even though in this 10th year of offering a strategy for successfully ending legal abortion in a single year, of receiving some encouragement, no explanation of fatal legal problems so far as I can understand, but no action, I fear that these toilsome emails are only winding up in junk boxes. Especially after you see THIS email. But what if one of you will see this and act in time, and save millions of lives? How can I still sleep?

This morning I will focus on why I believe it is very important to God that you make it your priority, to trust God who wrote (Mark 10:27) “With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.” and (Matthew 17:20) “Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.” and to stop parroting this nonsense that a strategy claiming to actually get judges to end legal abortion in a year is “impossible” just because legal minds have been telling you that for 48 years.

Don’t you believe God answers prayer? What is this nonsense that “God always answers prayer but sometimes His answer is ‘no’”? That’s not in the Bible! (2 Corinthians 1:20) “For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen [“so be it”], unto the glory of God by us.

Seriously, is this all you pray for: a way to, after a few more years, resume peripheral regulations of abortion like cleaning the blood off the walls or informing moms that they are murderers - laws whose reduction of the murders is not “substantial”?

Won't you keep praying about abortion until it is no longer legal? Don’t you cry out to God for an end to legal abortion not after several more bloody decades but rather after, at most, a few more months?

If that is what you pray for, where is your faith in God that when someone offers you exactly the opportunity you have been praying for for years, you say “impossible! I’m too busy chasing after goals little enough to be possible, to take time to validate the opportunity I really want.”

How dare you turn away from God’s answer to your most heartfelt prayer, just because He announces it to you through such a pathetic messenger, so lacking in the world’s credentials, and so reviled by mainstream media. Isn’t it rather typical of God to communicate with man through messengers of that quality? (1 Corinthians 4:9) “For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. 10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised. 11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace; 12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it: 13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” (1 Corinthians 3:18) “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

The next step, after trusting God’s promises, is to trust your own senses. When courts below SCOTUS unanimously say Roe made unborn babies nonpersons “as a matter of law”, so that evidence that they are fully human people is “irrelevant” in a case about stopping abortion, allow your brain to scream, “Wait a minute! How can the fact that abortion murders innocent people be irrelevant to whether it should be legal? Can Americans have a constitutionally protected right to murder each other ‘as a matter of law?!’

“And what’s this business about Roe saying evidence is irrelevant, when, as we are reminded in decades of prolife fundraising letters, it was Roe which said when the facts “establish” that babies of humans are humans, then “of course” the 14th Amendment protects their right to life? And look at the evidence we have now! Every court-recognized fact finder calls them ‘people’ from the get-go. I have never heard any legal authority say ‘life begins’ any later. Isn’t it time to generate a court case full of this evidence?

“Why do we prolifers give up before we start, declining to lob this evidence in a court case because we assume no judge will listen to it anyway? Why don’t we first let a judge see it, before we conclude he won’t look at it?”

When cynics tell you “no use putting solid legal arguments before judges. Just look at what they ignored in the ____ case”, let your common sense step forward and recognize that excuse for apathy and doing nothing excuses not passing any law, ever. Don’t humans continue trying to reason with each other, and to “provoke one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24)? Shall we give up trying because it is so hard and humans are so difficult? Or will we receive from God that to continue trying to reach even the hardest hearts is actually God’s key to our abundant life? (John 10:10) “The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (Mark 8:35) “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

As for whether the specific legal arguments presented here may fail in court, that is an untested theory. No state has presented them in court. In any case, it should be obvious from their most cursory reading, that they are a whole lot stronger than anything in previous Iowa prolife laws. They are more complete than the laws recently passed by Missouri and Alabama. Plus, again I urge you to read the “findings of facts”. Can you imagine how any Planned Barrenhood lawyer or judge could squarely address them and still refute them? If you see a vulnerability, other than the general cynical “judges won’t squarely address them”, warn me so I can work on fixing it. If you can’t, give Truth a chance. Give Light a chance to heal the Darkness. Introduce this bill.

When Jesus was 12, even though He is the Son of God, he sought out the world’s experts in His area of concern, to test His understanding, as an example for us. Luke 2:41-49. Then he thought about those things for another 20 years before He announced them to the world. Similarly, I have sought out the world’s experts on abortion law. I interacted with thousands as a political candidate beginning in 1988, and for 25 years beginning in 1989 I published the Prayer & Action News, which triggered interaction with news reporters and Banned Parenthood leaders and lawyers. During those years I also wrote legal briefs for five cases which died on SCOTUS’ doorstep, interacting with the baby killers’ most expensive lawyers and with many judges. I know all about judges dodging evidence and argument; but when they did, that told me that the arguments were solid enough that they saw a need to dodge them.

I have interacted with the lawyers in the Iowa legislature, to the extent they have allowed. Martin Cannon tells me my strategy makes “strong points”, and Chuck Hurley advises me to be like the “persistent widow” in Luke 18:1-8. But the jump from occasional encouragement to action has so far not been attempted. Hope for the unborn scheduled to be slain next year seems dead, not because any legal flaw has been identified in it, at least so far as I have been informed, but because people have too little faith in their own intelligence and in God’s Promises, to dare to seriously investigate the Answer to Prayer offered here.

Why is ending legal abortion, now, while you have the opportunity, more important than anything else you can do – more important than any other issue? Because it is the key to healing every other issue. Of all evils today, it is the most obviously evil, to the most people. It is most clearly the issue placing America at the greatest risk of God’s judgment. Therefore, it is the issue which, once healed, has the most potential for restoring our nation to God. For example, the Democratic Party, the party of so many evils, is so addicted to baby murder that ending the murders will decimate the party and all its evils.

And not just decimate its evils as if by force, leaving millions ready for violent rebellion (as if they aren’t already, over nothing) but heal its evils by shining the Light of common sense, evidence, and the Love of God on Darkness, in the same way a clear demonstration by Elijah of the reality of God and the fiction of Baal finally motivated the people to throw off their chains of cruel superstition. At least for a day. 1 Kings 18.

The other dimension of the spiritual importance of ending legal abortion is that to do it will require a better grasp of the Image of God which God has given every man and baby. I think the argument is a little weak that the only reason we “know” a baby is a “person” from fertilization is that medically and physically speaking, there is no objective line between birth and conception distinguishing “humans” from “nonpersons”. True as far as it goes, and without such a line, there can be no stage of gestation at which killing a baby can be objectively distinguished from murder. And no baby is safe while that line remains arbitrary. And the failure of some to grasp the humanity of babies at any given stage is a dangerous basis for permitting killing, since as many fail to grasp the full humanity of quite a number of distinct groups of born persons.

But Roe itself “opens the door” to go deeper.. “Infused with a soul” is part of Roe’s definition of “persons”. Human life isn’t just physical. Although our physical development is progressive, souls have no known preconscious stage.

Roe fortunately 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 consensus of fact finders is, implicitly, 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: which in turn proves even the capacity to choose between good and evil is present even months before birth.

Thank you so much for reading this far. Of course I won’t know that anyone does, unless someone tells me. Now, I pray, act. The first two pages of the attachment are all ready to send to the bill drafters. The rest of the attachment is explanation for you.


Dave Leach <> The Partnership Machine, Inc. <> 4110 SW 9th St <> Des Moines IA 50315 <> 515-244-3711