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 12, 2018)
(December 13, 2018)
Line 148: Line 148:
  
 
=December 13, 2018=
 
=December 13, 2018=
 +
 +
(Sent to Idaho,
 +
 +
“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, [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSyWoxGbpFg 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?
  
  

Revision as of 02:08, 25 November 2019

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

This article was started by [type 4 tildes]. 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.

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 Idaho,

“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?



ItsABabyNowYouKnowCartoon.jpg