Difference between revisions of "Statement 7 + Footnotes"
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
(Created page with "{| class="wikitable" |Forum (Articles) |Offer |Partners |Rules |Tips |SaveTheWorld:FAQ |Begin! |[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3...") |
|||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
<blockquote><small>FORGET YOU READ this 32 word Statement and DON’T read farther – ''certainly not the footnotes'' – if you don’t want to question the near consensus of prolife leaders who say “we are helpless to outlaw abortion in every state before we get ANOTHER personhood law through Congress, if not a Life Amendment to the Constitution.” <> This is the 7th of 12 Statements designed to push courts out of the way of defending Life in ''every'' state when included in the Findings of Facts of prolife laws. The material below can make it clearer and stronger.</small></blockquote> | <blockquote><small>FORGET YOU READ this 32 word Statement and DON’T read farther – ''certainly not the footnotes'' – if you don’t want to question the near consensus of prolife leaders who say “we are helpless to outlaw abortion in every state before we get ANOTHER personhood law through Congress, if not a Life Amendment to the Constitution.” <> This is the 7th of 12 Statements designed to push courts out of the way of defending Life in ''every'' state when included in the Findings of Facts of prolife laws. The material below can make it clearer and stronger.</small></blockquote> | ||
| − | <span style="color:blue">Congress established in 2004 that: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’...means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). | + | <span style="color:blue">Congress established in 2004 that: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’...means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). |
<ref>'''More about “‘unborn child’ means...a member of the species Homo Sapiens...”''' | <ref>'''More about “‘unborn child’ means...a member of the species Homo Sapiens...”''' | ||
<br> “Federal law recognizes human infants in utero, and premature infants born alive, as persons under the law at any gestational age. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes the “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” whose death or injury in the course of a federal crime is subject to prosecution the same as that of any born child or adult individual. 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), (a)(1). | <br> “Federal law recognizes human infants in utero, and premature infants born alive, as persons under the law at any gestational age. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes the “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” whose death or injury in the course of a federal crime is subject to prosecution the same as that of any born child or adult individual. 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), (a)(1). | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
<span style="color:blue">The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion. | <span style="color:blue">The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion. | ||
| − | Not only is the 2004 law unmitigated evidence of life strong enough to “collapse” legal abortion by itself, but it would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution. | + | Not only is the 2004 law unmitigated evidence of life strong enough to “collapse” legal abortion by itself, but it would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution. |
| − | <ref>More about “(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.” | + | <ref>More about '''“(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.”''' |
Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork: | Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork: | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. | More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. | ||
More about “(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.” | More about “(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.” | ||
| − | Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork: | + | <br> Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork: |
| − | + | <blockquote>“While I don’t ''object'' to a constitutional amendment that would extend special protection to unborn persons-especially since such an amendment would presumably lodge protection for the unborn beyond the discretion of partisan courts, and also dispose of any potential problems with respect to state action-'''such an amendment is constitutionally superfluous.''' The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was '''constitutionally resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment''', purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War. The constitutional debate over abortion, then, is ultimately a rehearsal of the very same questions that shook the nation during the Civil War.” (See Finding #11 for more about the Civil War context of the 14th Amendment.)</blockquote> | |
| − | “While I don’t object to a constitutional amendment that would extend special protection to unborn persons-especially since such an amendment would presumably lodge protection for the unborn beyond the discretion of partisan courts, and also dispose of any potential problems with respect to state action-such an amendment is constitutionally superfluous. The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was constitutionally resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment, purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War. The constitutional debate over abortion, then, is ultimately a rehearsal of the very same questions that shook the nation during the Civil War.” (See Finding #11 for more about the Civil War context of the 14th Amendment.) | + | <br> More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, ''except'' to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of ''citing'' all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. |
| − | |||
| − | More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. | ||
“Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if Roe v. Wade had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to interfere with laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf“Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if ''Roe v. Wade'' had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to block laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf</ref> | “Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if Roe v. Wade had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to interfere with laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf“Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if ''Roe v. Wade'' had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to block laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf</ref> | ||
| − | <span style="color:blue">No other Constitutional Amendment is relied on for evidence of a fact. An Amendment can bind courts. But establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court pulls not only courts, but society, closer to reality. | + | <span style="color:blue">No other Constitutional Amendment is relied on for evidence of a fact. An Amendment can bind courts. But establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court pulls not only courts, but society, closer to reality. 32/254 words |
| − | <ref></ref> | + | <ref>'''More about “Establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court draws not only courts, but society, closer to reality.”''' |
| + | <br> See Finding #2, note #1.</ref> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | + | '''FOOTNOTES''' | |
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | <references /> | |
| − | |||
Revision as of 19:00, 29 October 2023
| Forum (Articles) | Offer | Partners | Rules | Tips | SaveTheWorld:FAQ | Begin! | Donate |
Statement of Facts #7 from:
Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases
Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion
by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that:
The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal
A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen
by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Statement #7. Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion, without allowing Congress to legalize it.
FORGET YOU READ this 32 word Statement and DON’T read farther – certainly not the footnotes – if you don’t want to question the near consensus of prolife leaders who say “we are helpless to outlaw abortion in every state before we get ANOTHER personhood law through Congress, if not a Life Amendment to the Constitution.” <> This is the 7th of 12 Statements designed to push courts out of the way of defending Life in every state when included in the Findings of Facts of prolife laws. The material below can make it clearer and stronger.
Congress established in 2004 that: “‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’...means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, 18 U.S.C. 1841(d). [1]
This fact is not diminished by clause (c) which does not “permit [authorize] the prosecution of any person for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…” [2] A law misaligned with facts does not block future lawmakers from making corrections, and states don’t need Congress’ “permission” to obey the 14th Amendment.
The reason 18 U.S.C. 1841(d) has had no effect on the practice of legal abortion is not because of any deficiency in its authority to establish dispositive facts, but because no state law reviewed by SCOTUS has cited it to establish what Roe correctly said once “established” would “of course” require the end of legal abortion. Not only is the 2004 law unmitigated evidence of life strong enough to “collapse” legal abortion by itself, but it would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution. [3] No other Constitutional Amendment is relied on for evidence of a fact. An Amendment can bind courts. But establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court pulls not only courts, but society, closer to reality. 32/254 words [4]
FOOTNOTES
- ↑ More about “‘unborn child’ means...a member of the species Homo Sapiens...”
“Federal law recognizes human infants in utero, and premature infants born alive, as persons under the law at any gestational age. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act recognizes the “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb” whose death or injury in the course of a federal crime is subject to prosecution the same as that of any born child or adult individual. 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), (a)(1).
“The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act establishes even more broadly that, for purposes of ‘any Act of Congress’ and ‘any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States,’ ‘the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.” 1 U.S.C. § 8 (a). (From the amicus brief of Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide filed in Dobbs v. Jackson. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185155/20210728163153060_Amici Brief of CMP-Daleiden.pdf) - ↑ More about “clause (c)...does not...[authorize]... prosecution...for...an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman...has been obtained.…”
Finding #7 refutes the official position 19 years ago of prolifers and Republican Congressmen that 1841(c) robs clause (d) of any power to undermine Roe. “By its express terms, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act does not apply to, nor in any way affect nor alter, the ability of a woman to have an abortion.” - House Judiciary Committee report 2/11/2004 [1]
“The law explicitly provides that it does not apply to any abortion to which a woman has consented, to any act of the mother herself (legal or illegal) ...It is well established that unborn victims laws (also known as ‘fetal homicide’ laws) do not conflict with the Supreme Court’s pro-abortion decrees (Roe v. Wade, etc.). The state laws mentioned above have had no effect on the practice of legal abortion.” - Key Facts on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act 4/1/2004 nrlc.org. unbornvictims/keypointsuvva NRLC.org
Clause (d) has not proved able to end legal abortion only because prolife lawmakers have not cited it in support of that goal. Which has been a total pleasant surprise to Democrats. These quotes are repeated from Note #2, Finding #3:Senator John Kerry, who was a main opponent of President George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, voted against the bill, saying, “I have serious concerns about this legislation because the law cannot simultaneously provide that a fetus is a human being and protect the right of the mother to choose to terminate her pregnancy.”
Representative Jerrold Nadler made a statement in voicing his opposition to a proposed federal law giving prenatal entities certain legal rights. “The bill appears to contradict an important premise behind the constitutional right to seek an abortion: prenatal entities are not persons.” [2]
For a color coded transcript of Congressional debate about 18 USC 1841(d) with my comments and analysis, showing Republicans assuring Democrats that the bill wouldn’t threaten their precious abortions while skeptical Democrats make very clear why abortion could never survive its use in court, see www.Saltshaker.US/SLIC/ CongressionalRecord2004.pdf. - ↑ More about “(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.”
Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork:
“While I don’t object to a constitutional amendment that would extend special protection to unborn persons-especially since such an amendment would presumably lodge protection for the unborn beyond the discretion of partisan courts, and also dispose of any potential problems with respect to state action-such an amendment is constitutionally superfluous. The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was constitutionally resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment, purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War. The constitutional debate over abortion, then, is ultimately a rehearsal of the very same questions that shook the nation during the Civil War.” (See Finding #11 for more about the Civil War context of the 14th Amendment.)
More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws.
More about “(18 USC 1841(d)) would not be stronger if it were an Amendment to the Constitution.”
Professor Nathan Schluetter, Hillsdale College, debating Judge Bork:“While I don’t object to a constitutional amendment that would extend special protection to unborn persons-especially since such an amendment would presumably lodge protection for the unborn beyond the discretion of partisan courts, and also dispose of any potential problems with respect to state action-such an amendment is constitutionally superfluous. The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was constitutionally resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment, purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War. The constitutional debate over abortion, then, is ultimately a rehearsal of the very same questions that shook the nation during the Civil War.” (See Finding #11 for more about the Civil War context of the 14th Amendment.)
More personhood amendments in laws and constitutions help, except to the extent lawmakers imagine that must be done before anything else can be effective. There are already enough – 38 states and Congress – for us to stop waiting before we take the next step of citing all that evidence, plus the findings of other fact finders, in courts reviewing prolife laws. “Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if Roe v. Wade had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to interfere with laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf“Any proposed future personhood language in state and federal law, or in the Constitution, is NO GREENER LIGHT than the legal green light already shining since at least 2004, for state lawmakers to criminalize abortion as if Roe v. Wade had never existed – had never deadened judicial brains to imagine they had authority to block laws against murder.” See www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/NoGreenerLight.pdf - ↑ More about “Establishment of the Facts Of Life by evidence presented, cited, and tested in court draws not only courts, but society, closer to reality.”
See Finding #2, note #1.