The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
As pro-lifers, we’re quite accustomed to hearing abortion advocates say stupid things. Joseph E. Narigon of Indianola writes a letter to the Des Moines Register displaying some of that typical mindlessness regarding the recognition of unborn babies as persons:
- Can the mother claim the fetus as a dependent on her income tax form?
- Will the fetus need a Social Security number the first day?
- Will a birthday or a conception day be celebrated every year of life?
- Will a name have to be registered and a certificate issued (like a birth certificate) at the time of the conception?
Let me add:
- Will pregnant women be allowed to use high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes?
- Will the fetus be allowed to carry a gun?
- Will a pregnant woman be allowed to vote twice?
I’d like to expand the list of inanities, so please let me know if you’ve heard any others on this topic.
- If we’re not going to let pregnant mothers claim unborn babies as dependents on their taxes then it’s ok to kill those unborn babies.
- If we’re not going to issue SSNs to unborn babies, it must be ok to kill them.
- If we don’t celebrate conception day, it must be ok to kill unborn babies.
I could continue, but I hope even pro-aborts might see the obvious stupidity (non-sequiturs) in these types of objections.
If it took issuing SSNs, conception certificates and guns to unborn babies, allowing pregnant women to drive in HOV lanes and to vote twice and changing the tax code, that’s a price worth paying to protect the lives of the innocent. So even if such consequences were required, it’s a big “so what?” Oh the horror, pregnant mothers in the HOV lane!
But of course, recognizing unborn babies are persons requires no such price. I didn’t get my SSN until I was 16 yet I was still a person before then. Jehovah Witnesses don’t celebrate birthdays, yet they’re still persons. Newborns can’t carry guns or vote, yet they’re still persons. Birth certificates weren’t issued by governments until the 1900s, yet 19th century people were still persons.
Registration with a government doesn’t make one a person. How others feel about you doesn’t make you a person. Your mere existence as a human being means you’re a person with a right to life.
On a final note, Mr. Narigon’s offers his nonsense in response to an Iowa personhood proposal that reads:
The inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected.
How does protecting the right to life of persons say anything about taxes, SSNs or birth certificates? It’s almost as if Mr. Narigon didn’t even bother to read the proposal he’s criticizing.
The Editorial Board of the The Daily Iowan has weighed in with a pro-abortion propaganda piece entitled Personhood amendment unnecessarily dangerous. It quotes Jill June, the President of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, “This amendment would ban all safe abortion”. Of course, there is no such thing as a “safe abortion”. All abortions kill an innocent human being. Killing is never safe for the victim. But that‘s the key for pro-aborts: ignore the victim.
As you can surmise from the PP quote, the piece focuses on back alley abortions, while (of course) ignoring the unborn victim. The Board continues:
The basic line of reasoning against restricting abortion is essentially the typical conservative argument against gun control, repurposed. If you outlaw abortion, only outlaws will perform abortions.
If you outlaw child molestation, only outlaws will molest children. If you outlaw spousal abuse, only outlaws will abuse their spouses. If you outlaw senicide, only outlaws will kill old men.
The Editorial Board, like most pro-aborts, obviously hasn’t thought through its position very well. Either that or it has a low opinion of its readers. Why make a good argument when cheap propaganda will suffice?
The Board quotes approvingly Susan A. Cohen of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute who, with obvious misogyny, states:
Restrictive laws have much less impact on stopping women from ending an unwanted pregnancy than on forcing those who are determined to do so to seek out clandestine means.
If you don’t want to be pregnant and killing your baby is illegal, you’re “forced” to do it secretly. Women don’t consciously make decisions to endanger their own lives to kill their babies. They’re victims of circumstances beyond their control. Women are nothing more than mindless automatons, “forced” to kill their babies.
From misogyny, the Board turns to using statistics in a deceptive way:
An August 2012 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research projected that if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the 31 most conservative states adopted full abortion bans, the national abortion rate would fall by about 15 percent.
Even if this statistic is true (which I doubt), it provides good reason to outlaw abortion. We would save 180,000 (15% of 1.2 million currently murdered) babies a year.
But notice the cheat. When conservative states outlaw abortion, you need to look at the abortion rates only in those states. Duh. Why mix New York’s all-you-can-eat baby-killing statistics with Oklahoma’s? The Board has an agenda, so it twists the statistics to fit its agenda.
Bernard Nathanson, a New York abortionist and co-founder of NARAL, said the number of pre-Roe prenatal baby-killings was 100,000 nationwide. As you would expect, once legalized, the number of such killings quickly increased to over a million per year, peaking at 1.6 million. The fact is if we outlaw abortion, far fewer people will kill their babies.
The last line of the opinion piece “Go back to the drawing board” only applies to itself. I can see why no member of the Editorial Board would put his name on the piece. The Daily Iowan needs to hire someone who can actually think beyond shallow pro-abortion talking points.
William Petroski, of the Des Moines Register, reports that “21 senators want life to start at conception in Iowa”. It’s a great title because of its distortion. Conception begins the life of a human being whether or not any Iowa Senators recognize this fact. Rather, some pro-life Iowa Senators have offered Senate Joint Resolution 10, an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that states:
The inalienable right to life of every person at any stage of development shall be recognized and protected.
I like this amendment because it doesn't say when life begins. It certainly doesn't say that life begins at conception.
Obviously, a right to life can't exist where life doesn't exist. If pro-aborts really believe that life doesn't begin until birth, they should support (or at least not oppose) this amendment. But of course, pro-aborts recognize, as William Petroski recognizes, that life begins at conception.
Thank you Senator Dennis Guth and the twenty other Iowa Senators for standing for truth and life.
The title of Shane Vander Hart's post says it all: Republican-Led Iowa House Advance Zero Pro-Life Bills. Mr. Vander Hart's frustration is evident and justified. Pro-lifers often bicker instead of joining together to pass legislation. Part of the problem is that legislation tends to be corrupt. Often there's a block of legislators who are too weak to do the right thing.
Legislators didn’t get a chance to vote on Tom Shaw's Personhood bill or any of the rest.
This is the first ten minutes of a recent speech by Iowa State Representative Tom Shaw.
Here's part of Huckabee's speech at the same event.
Hat tip to www.americaspartynews.com
The meat of the bill is a definition of person added to the murder statute:
“Person”, when referring to the victim of a murder, means an individual human being, without regard to age of development, from the moment of conception, when a zygote is formed, until natural death.
There are better ways to delineate the beginning of life but this is a good bill, worthy of support.
by Rebecca Millette* Tue Feb 15, 2011 16:29 EST * Comments (0) * Tags: abortion, personhood, personhood usa * http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/personhood-bills-introduced-gain-tracti…
February 15, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Personhood bills and amendments are gaining notice and approval across the United States, with a one such bill having passed the House in North Dakota and another the Iowa House subcommittee. Georgia, Montana, Texas, and Oklahoma have also introduced personhood legislation, reports Personhood USA.
House Bill 1450, The Defense of Human Life Act, overwhelmingly passed the North Dakota House last week 68-25. The text defines “human being” as “an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development.”
“The overwhelming community and legislative support for HB 1450 proves that North Dakota could be the first state to recognize the value and dignity of every living human being,” stated Representative Dan Ruby who introduced the bill. “The Defense of Human Life Act is just common sense… I look forward to its passage in the Senate in the near future.”
In Iowa, the House subcommittee approved a personhood bill in a 2:1 vote on Monday. House File 153 states, “life is valued and protected from the moment of conception, and each life, from that moment, is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons.” The bill will soon go to the full committee for a vote.
“The Personhood movement is growing rapidly, and we expect victory in every state,” stated Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA. “Personhood USA is in it to end it, and as we continue to see new personhood amendments and legislation, we are witnessing a historical movement to finally end the destruction of human lives and to protect women and children at all stages of life.”
The Georgia Senate has filed a new amendment to State Constitution today that would recognize the personhood of an individual from the moment of fertilization.
Senate Resolution 153, called “Paramount Right to Life,” states, “The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life … the word ‘person’ applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every stage of their biological development.”
Georgia Right to Life sponsored a non-binding poll in 46 Georgian counties last July that gauged voter support of a personhood amendment, the results of which indicated that Georgians are largely in favor of the new amendment. The poll question, which received between 60-92% support, was almost identical to the question submitted with SR 153.
Monday also saw the introduction of a personhood amendment in Montana. The Constitutional Initiative No. 102 or “Personhood” Amendment has nearly identical wording to Georgia’s, recognizing the personhood rights of all human beings.
Rebecca Kiessling, a woman conceived in rape, gave a moving testimonial to the Montana Legislature at the hearing Monday. “I may not look the same as I did when I was four years old or four days old yet unborn in my mother’s womb, but that was still undeniably me and I would have been killed through a brutal abortion.”
Meanwhile Texas introduced amendments to the Health and Safety Code in House Bill 1109, filed earlier this month. The bill maintains that life begins at fertilization and that preborn children have “the rights, protections, and privileges accorded to any other person in this state.”
In Oklahoma, a personhood amendment was also recently introduced. “Protecting everyone, including the preborn, is consistent with the vision of our Founding Fathers,” stated Representative Blackwell, one of the bill’s sponsors.
History was made in the Iowa Legislature today.
For the first time ever, real pro life legislation that might actually save babies and uphold the inalienable right to life made it out of a subcommittee in the Iowa House. HF 153, authored by State Rep. Kim Pearson and co-sponsored by 27 other Republicans, is the first “life at conception” bill to make it out of subcommittee.
The bill states:
The sovereign state of Iowa recognizes that life is valued and protected from the moment of conception, and each life, from that moment, is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, and the laws of this state. The Iowa Supreme Court shall not have appellate jurisdiction over the provisions of this section. This Act, being deemed of immediate importance, takes effect upon enactment. This bill establishes that the sovereign state of Iowa recognizes that life is valued and protected from the moment of conception and each life is accorded the same rights and protections guaranteed to all persons by the constitutions of the state of Iowa and the United States, and by the laws of the state. The bill also provides that the Iowa Supreme Court does not have appellate jurisdiction over the provisions of the bill.
That is perhaps the most righteously-worded piece of legislation I’ve ever read. Imagine where the fight for the sanctity of life would be in this country if we had started the battle here the day after Roe v. Wade in state legislatures all across the country with bills worded exactly like this? Instead, we spent a generation fighting on the legal positivists and baby butchers’ terms, accepting their unconstitutional and immoral premise that courts make law and then reinforcing it ourselves fighting for abortion mills regulatory reform bills that ended with the hellish phrase “and then you can kill the baby.”
Perhaps no institution in America has fought harder and longer for the sanctity of human life than has the Catholic Church, which is why it’s surprising to find that the two lobbyists at the Iowa Statehouse from the Iowa Catholic Conference are registered as “undecided” as of now on HF 153.
Not only does this bill begin with the most righteous and American premise about the sanctity of life, but its wording also asserts a dually important premise that courts don’t make law and have no authority to try and do so not granted to them by the other two branches refusing to assert their constitutional authority.
“We had absolutely riveting personal stories from two women who had had abortions,” State Rep. Pearson said. “They spoke of the physical pain of the abortion and the sound of the vacuum. Both cried out for the ‘doctors’ to stop. One woman was held down by a handful of staff. The guilt and shame of the abortions lead them down a path of further destruction (suicide attempts, drug/alcohol abuse) until they felt the forgiveness and healing from Jesus Christ. They were so brave! When they realized that the bill had passed its first hurdle they cried and thanked the Lord.”
Opposing the bill in subcommittee was Democrat State Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell. Republican State Rep. David Heaton was the deciding vote that sent HF 153 to the full 21-member Iowa House Human Resources Committee. A majority of that committee’s members must approve of the personhood measure before it can be voted upon for passage out of the Iowa House and sent to the Democrat-controlled State Senate.
Neither of Iowa’s twin governors, Terry Branstad and Mike Gronstal, has indicated whether or not they would allow the legislation to move forward should it pass the Iowa House. Hopefully the language limiting the jurisdiction of the Iowa Supreme Court found in the bill will become a mainstay in all legislation made by those attempting to restore America’s constitutional and natural law foundations.
Associated Press – Mike Glover
DES MOINES, Iowa —
Abortions would be banned in Iowa, including in cases of rape and incest, under a bill approved Monday by a House subcommittee.
The measure defines life as beginning at conception. But opponents said the broad wording of the bill would also prohibit some forms of contraception and could have many other unintended consequences.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kim Pearson, said it was important for the Legislature to go on record as favoring protecting life.
“The real issue is life is sacred,” said Pearson, R-Pleasant Hill. “I believe that abortion is murder. What I want to make sure is this culture values life.”
Get tickets to Chicago Live!, a stage show brought to you by the Chicago Tribune and The Second City >>
A subcommittee of the House Human Resources Committee approved the plan on a 2-1 vote, sending it to the full committee for more debate. It is one of two bills in the House aimed at imposing new restrictions on abortions.
Opponents said the measure’s real goal is to provide a vehicle for challenging a U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
“Their intent is to overturn Roe vs. Wade,” said Kyle Carlson, a lobbyist Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.
Danny Carroll, of the conservative group Family Leader, conceded there would be court challenge should the measure eventually become law.
“There are a number of variables, Supreme Court review, state court review,” said Carroll. “The main reason for passing this bill is it’s simply the right thing to do.”
The Human Resources Committee is also considering a bill that would put new restrictions on late-term abortions, but it hasn’t gotten enough votes to move into the full House. Pearson and other conservatives argue that by restricting late-term abortions, lawmakers are essentially sanctioning abortions earlier in the pregnancy.
Rep. Beth Wessel-Kroeschell, D-Ames, said the broad wording of the bill approved Monday would result in many unintended consequences.
Under the bill, she said, a pregnant woman could be charged with endangering the fetus if she smokes or consumes alcohol. She also said some forms of birth control that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb would likely be banned under the measure.
“I believe contraception would be illegal under this bill,” said Wessel-Kroeschell. “There are consequences when we pass legislation.”
Before approving the measure, the panel heard testimony from Jennifer Minney, a Cedar Rapids woman who said she was pressured into getting an abortion by a former husband and has suffered ever since.
“Abortion is not over as soon as it’s done,” said Minney, who said she’s battled with alcohol and depression since she got an abortion in 1998.
Republicans seized control of the House by a 60-40 margin in the last election, and GOP members overwhelmingly oppose abortion. But they’ve seen the issue stall over disagreements about how far they should go in restricting abortion.
House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, R-Hiawatha, said lawmakers still have another month to win committee approval of abortion restrictions, and he’s confident they will act.
“My expectation is we’ll make a decision and something will move,” said Paulsen.
The subcommittee of the Iowa House approved the personhood bill at a 2:1 vote, sending it to the full committee for the next vote in the near future. The Iowa personhood bill, like all personhood efforts, will recognize the value and dignity of every single human being, protecting every child by law.
In North Dakota, The Defense of Human Life Act, HB 1450, passed in the North Dakota House with an overwhelming majority of 68 – 25. Introduced by Representative Dan Ruby, the text defines: “Human being” as an individual member of the species homo sapiens at every stage of development.”
“The Personhood movement is growing rapidly, and we expect victory in every state. Personhood USA is in it to end it, and as we continue to see new personhood amendments and legislation, we are witnessing a historical movement to finally end the destruction of human lives and to protect women and children at all stages of life,” stated Keith Mason, co-founder of Personhood USA.
Montana introduced a personhood amendment, recognizing the rights of all human beings, no matter their size, seeking to make Montana safer for women and children. Introduced by Representative Wendy Warburton, the Montana legislature heard moving testimony from Rebecca Kiessling, a woman conceived in rape. Rebecca’s testimony includes, “ I may not look the same as I did when I was four years old or four days old yet unborn in my mother’s womb, but that was still undeniably me and I would have been killed through a brutal abortion.”
Texas has introduced HB 1109, which amends the Texas Health and Safety Code by recognizing that preborn children have “the rights, protections, and privileges accorded to any other person in this state.”
Oklahoma has also introduced a Personhood Amendment, introduced by Representative Blackwell and Representative Vaughan, which recognizes the personhood rights of all human beings. “Protecting everyone, including the preborn, is consistent with the vision of our Founding Fathers,” stated Representative Blackwell.