Rand Paul - Using Roe v Wade's Words In the Ruling to Overturn It
Notice that it says that if personhood is established, then the so-called right of abortion is trumped by the preborn child's constitutionally guarenteed right to life. That also means that, despite abortion supporters claims to the contrary, abortion is NOT a Constitutionally guarenteed right.
Over the years many personhood efforts have sprung up, mostly on the state level. They were based on the quote above as the reason. Unfortunately none of them have yet to suceed. In part because of the lack of support it should have gotten from Pro-lifers, especially from the Catholic Bishops. The cop out used the that the Supreme Court could overrule it, despite the Court's own words, making things worse than they are now. Given how the Supreme Court doesn't always rule correctly (like it should have in the 1st place for Roe v Wade or Dred Scott v. Sandford), the reluctance isn't totally without validity. But IMHO, the effort still must be made, if only to educate more people about the truth.
But the move is growing, both in many states & on the national level as well. In the 112th Session of Congress, Pro-life Members of Congress introduced Life at Conception Acts, both in the House of Representatives & in the U.S. Senate. In the Senate, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) introduced the Life at Conception Act, S. 91. In the House 2 Acts were introduced. Congressman Paul Broun, introduced H.R. 212, & Congressman Duncan D. Hunter introduced H.R. 374.
Congressman Broun, the author of H.R. 212, is a medical doctor who was ist elected in 2007. Congressman Broun has used his medical expertise to legally establish the scientific fact that conception marks the creation of a genetically unique human being, who should be guaranteed Constitutional protection under the 14th Amendment.
I know that some people are saying that even if these bills pass, currently unlikely in the Senate, & the even more unlikely thing happens, Obama signs it or it has a veto-proof majority, the sourts could still overthrow it. Well, there is a solution to that as well, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096]. This act is based on Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It states: "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Even so, many members of Congress, Democrat or Republican, are doing all they can to avoid going on the record about when they feel life begins. Now, many of them can play both sides.
As I have already pointed out, many of those in the Republican party want to marginalize the Pro-lifers. This vote would force them to take a stand they don't want to take because they still want the Pro-life vote. In short, either they come out as the pro-aborts they really are or they are forced to admit that Pro-life isn't as divisive & dangerous to support as they claim.
As I pointed out in the title, 1 of those supporting the effort to bring up for a vote. He recently recorded a message for the National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA), talking about the legislation. (Note: This is also a message seeking support for the NPLA as well.)
The only concern I have is that the law ensures that conception is defined as the point when the egg & sperm join.
In the end, we may still have to pass a Constitutional amendment. But if this can do it, then we need to try. With the Senate & Obama being pro-abort, it won't be easy. We must continue to pray. We must also continue to educate more people to the truth of what abortion really does. In doing so, the pressure on elected officials will grow, forcing them to act as well.
The one thing we cannot do, is nothing.
Source: Rand Paul promotes bill to ‘end abortion on demand once and for all’