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)

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 Texas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Ohio do not publish email addresses of their lawmakers, so I had to submit information on web forms which allow limited text and no photos or links.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. 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: AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.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: AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.pdf www.saltshaker.us/SLIC/HowStatesCanOutlaw AbortionInAWayThatSurvivesCourts.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