I’m glad to see that we can agree that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito upheld First Amendment rights against overzealous regulation of political speech. In my view, however, the IRS restrictions on candidate endorsement are another example of “over-regulation of political ideas in the name of ‘good government.’” As Barry knows, the “election sermon” was quite common throughout the country from colonial times until 1954 when then-Senator Lyndon Johnson introduced an amendment that became law that barred tax-exempt groups, including churches, from participating in political activity. A legislative repeal of these provisions is needed to restore unbridled free speech to religious leaders of all faiths.
Regarding abortion, millions of Americans believe in the personhood of the unborn for a variety of moral, legal, religious, and scientific reasons. Since Barry raised the issue of the Bible’s discussion of the unborn, it should be noted that there are numerous Biblical passages that state that God creates and forms each person in their mother’s womb and that unborn children can sense and react to God’s presence. Regardless of one’s theological views, however, the key question remains whether the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments provide a constitutional right to abortion that trumps legislative efforts to protect human dignity.
On a different note, ds0490 made the following comment in response to an earlier post: “I’m curious to know if Mr. Sekulow disagrees with the Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, Brown v. Board of Education, or Dred Scott v. Sanford. In the first two the Court ‘created’ rights and in the second it ‘honored’ the intent of Congress.” Here is my response:
Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were correctly decided. The Court did not create any new rights but simply upheld the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination expressly provided by the Constitution.
The Fourteenth Amendment, enacted shortly after the Civil War, states in relevant part: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This provision was designed to ensure that state and local governments would not treat African-Americans less favorably than whites, thus denying them the “equal protection of the laws.”
In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court held that racially segregated public school systems “are inherently unequal” and violate the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 495. The Court held that “the opportunity of an education . . . where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Id. at 493.
In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), the Court invalidated a law prohibiting inter-racial marriage, noting that such provisions “arose as an incident to slavery.” Id. at 6. The Court correctly noted that “[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States.” Id. at 10. The Court applied the longstanding principle that “the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the ‘most rigid scrutiny.’” Id. at 11.
The Brown and Loving decisions recognized and applied the compelling interest in eradicating racial discrimination expressly stated in the Fourteenth Amendment.
posted August 27, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Thank you, Mr. Sekulow, for your response. I appreciate your insight, and responded in the other thread (where you posted this as a comment).
What about Dred Scott v. Sanford?
posted August 27, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Well, what can I say about Hilary Clinton, other than we have different views as to which are in vital importance. I see the turning of America into a protection of life is of great necessity which should not be ignored. The political response of giving a choice to kill through procedure should not be ignored or discredited because a political party wants to let people decide to murder their children. I am to see the individual inside as having rights as his or her own which should not be devalued because of political standing or another persons point of view. What’s the difference between murder inside or outside of the womb. A breath or food is always needed to sustain life. Sounds like a procedure which is taking breath away from an individual is somehow showed as a respectful or valued choice to a political standing or party which values it as a choice. I am sorry that our nation is in such confusion as to what is important. I choose life beyond a persons articulate verbal communication skills. I love that child inside that person that they are letting or giving a person a choice to murder.
Cara
posted August 27, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“I love that child inside that person that they are letting or giving a person a choice to murder.”
Then you should be happy with the Democrats and their approach. They are proposing proven methods of reducing abortions, namely programs designed to increase access to health care, improve the economy, and promote life both before AND after birth.
That’s quite a bit more than the Republicans have done over the years. They keep harping on stopping abortions, but under the Bush administration abortions have increased.
I trust you will be voting with your principles and supporting the party with tried and proven ways of decreasing the number of abortions in this nation, Cara.
That would be the Democrats.
posted August 27, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Scientifically and legally speaking, an unborn human fetus is unquestionably all four of the following:
A: Human. (Every cell’s DNA, whether it be 1 or more, is human.)
B: Life. (It’s growing. Not shrinking, rotting, or even sitting there.)
C: Innocent. (It’s never been tried in a court of law and been sentenced to death.)
D: Unique. (It is not an exact replica of either parent. It’s not just part of somebody else. Every sell in everybody is DNA coded – there’s no question that the cells in the fetus belong to another then the mother.)
Under no other circumstances do we legally allow, much less federally fund, the killing of an innocent human life.
Remember, every doctor-performed abortion is done in exchange for money. The “doctor” performing the deed makes money at it. In other words, every baby aborted is worth money to the “doctor” being paid to do it. So why is there such a heavy lobby effort in congress to protect this trade? Because these precious babies are worth more dead then alive to planned parenthood and other providers.
Under no other circumstances do we allow the taking of innocent human lives simply because they are worth more money dead then alive. Think about that!
-Jesse
posted August 27, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“Under no other circumstances do we allow the taking of innocent human lives simply because they are worth more money dead then alive. Think about that!”
Many folks like me have, Jesse. And we have determined that it is time to do something about it.
Steve Waldman posted a story earlier today on his blog here at B’net concerning the connection between social spending and abortion. The thrust of the story was that as social spending in several key areas increased, abortions decreased.
This is borne out not only by the study cited in his story but also by statistics available from several pro-life and pro-choice groups. Under the administration of Bill Clinton abortions were decreasing. Under the administration of George W. Bush they are increasing. When you consider what the conservatives in the GOP have done to social spending in the years they controlled Congress it is not surprising.
I’ve asked this question on other blogs as well as this one, and I will ask it of you also. Studies show that increasing social spending helps decrease the number of abortions. You say that “under no circumstances do we allow the taking of innocent human life.”
Are you willing to see your taxes go up as little as 35 cents a day if it could be guaranteed that about 2000 unborn children would not be aborted each day this year?
Passing laws will do little to stop abortions. Those who can afford it will go to other countries. Those who can’t afford to travel that far will go to back alleys or do it at home abortions.
What has been shown to decrease abortions is increased attention to the reasons for the abortion; economic, social and health care reasons. Are you willing to do the hard work necessary to truly cut back on the number of unborn children being killed in abortion centers?
Or are you among those who want an “all or nothing” solution because you would rather use unborn children as a political tool than see them as a gift from God?
posted August 29, 2008 at 11:45 am
All the statistics that I could find on abortion says that rates have fallen and are at their lowest in decades, so I’m a little confused about your comment DS, that the rate of abortions have risen under the Bush Administration. Where did you find your statistics?
posted August 29, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Good afternoon RJohnson,
Thanks for your comment. I couldn’t find the story by Steve Waldman which you referred me to; I’m new to beliefnet. Could you kindly direct me? Much of what you said didn’t make sense without me having read the article in question.
“The thrust of the story was that as social spending in several key areas increased, abortions decreased.”
That’s funny. You know I noticed in my multi-year study of weather and the calendar that statistically speaking the weather is nicer in the months when I have had the calendar turned to August, and worse when it’s turned to December. You don’t suppose I could leave it on August to have always nice weather, do you?
I felt younger when Clinton was president then I do now that Bush has been president.
I guess I need to see the article you’re talking about, but according to this website (which google found for me at a moments notice) the per capita abortions went down during President Bush the current’s time in office – as part of a continual decrease since the major peak in about 1980.
(http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
So whether abortion is going up or down I do not know, but if it is going up there are numerous possible (even likely) causes besides Bush being in office. For example, as the childbearing-aged population grows, the number of abortions will too even if the per capita stays the same. Furthermore, as more time goes on, a larger and larger percentage of young women have been being taught since nearly kindergarten in school that “abortion is OK.” And more and more abortion facilities are being built every year as well. And planned parenthood has been spending more and more on their PR campaign to convince people that abortions are safe. On their website they say “Abortion is a safe and legal way for women to choose to end pregnancy. … Abortions are very common. In fact, more than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. ”
(http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion-4260.htm) See? In other words: “Everybody’s doing it. It’s safe, legal, and common.” There is an enormous widespread effort to “Normalize” it in the minds of children (so that it will be well learned for when they are in their 20s.) And they also work at it from another angle — telling children how to experiment “safely” without getting pregnant.
So with the combination of more clinics, more PR that abortions are safe, a growing population, more PR from schools and PP encouraging kids to experiment (thus resulting in more unintended pregnancies) it would be no wonder that abortions are rising.
But as I pointed out, abortion is scientifically and legally the taking of an innocent human life – in other words, murder. So let’s rephrase the question with the correct word:
”Studies show that increasing social spending helps decrease the number of MURDERS” (Jesse’s paraphrase of your statement.)
But wait a second! that sounds all wrong! – As if we’re trying to pacify murderers somehow, rather then trying them for their crime!
“Are you willing to see your taxes go up as little as 35 cents a day if it could be guaranteed that about 2000 unborn children would not be aborted each day this year?”
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying, but according to this website, there are 3700 abortions per day in the US. And you’re saying that a small tax raise is guaranteed to drop that to 1700?
(http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html)
But if abortions are murders, then we’re still in real trouble.
“Passing laws will do little to stop abortions.”
Well now I disagree with you on that one, respectfully of course.
Laws may not stop all of them, but they sure could stop many of them.
First of all, passing a law that blocked federal funding of abortion providers sure as anything ought to reduce the number of abortions. We’re not just talking about permitting something, we’re talking about my tax dollars going to an organization that is the nations largest single abortion provider! There is a great step between permitting and condoning/supporting/funding!
Second, if the taking of an innocent human life were legally treated for what it is, there are a lot of abortion “doctors” who wouldn’t do it anymore – or at least the prisons would be filled with actual murderers for a change.
You say that the women will just go in an alley and do it themselves – but they know that’s not safe, and my observation of human nature tells me that a LOT of women wouldn’t have an abortion if the only way to do it was not safe. Remember, the constant assuring PR plea from the abortion providers is “It’s safe.” Some still may have abortions, but hey some people will also get murdered in bank robberies – but my tax dollars won’t be paying for them to do the deeds and I will not be supporting or approving.
Think of it his way – let us assume that abortions are done because the baby will be an inconvenience. But almost everybody has somebody in their life who’s inconvenient. What if there was no age limit or familial ties requirements on abortions? This way anybody could go into a clinic, pay a fee, and go home, and the clinic would then send out their hitmen to kill whoever it was they had been paid to abort. (abort means to end early, for your information, so anybody’s life can be aborted.)
It may be the that raising taxes and increasing social spending (by the way what is social spending?) may also reduce the number of murders, but it’s not the correct answer to the problem. (And I doubt it will work.)
“Those who can afford it will go to other countries. Those who can’t afford to travel that far will go to back alleys or do it at home abortions.”
Some will. But I won’t be condoning or funding it.
Remember, abortions are generally about convenience. Going to another country or doing something unsafe isn’t going to be convenient. Many women just wouldn’t have abortions if they couldn’t go to a clinic within a few hours drive and get it done. And even if they did go out of the country – hey some people are bound and determined to commit murder – but at least it wouldn’t be in my country, and it wouldn’t be paid for or aided by my tax dollars.
My original point was and is that abortion is scientifically and legally the taking of an innocent human life, which is the very definition for murder.
I don’t get the feeling that you agreed, but I’m not sure you really addressed it.
Either abortion is murder or it isn’t – if it is (and I demonstrated that it is in my previous post) , then we’re in a bad way because we’ve got many government aided facilities providing contract killing services.
So either it is or it isn’t and we need to figure that out.
Sincerely,
-Jesse
posted September 2, 2008 at 2:05 am
The actual Mirriam-Webster definition of Murder:
[n]1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
[v]1: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice.
There are additional entries for both the noun and the verb but they do not refer to the more meaningful definition of murder when it comes to legal or official matters. So both definitions above clearly state that murder is NOT limited to merely the killing of a human; some sort of malice must be part of it.
In an abortion there is no malice or no reason for malice to be part of the equation. The reasoning behind performing an abortion is almost always intended as a form of benevolence toward an individual: A mother who would be better off without a child, and also the child who may be forced to be brought up in a very harsh situation if taken to term.
Therefore in no way shape or form is abortion = murder. Please get your terminology straight and stop letting emotion weaken your argument.
posted September 3, 2008 at 3:14 am
Farcy,
Thanks for the comment. While several of the definitions of murder do indicate malice, I think you might be mistaken to say that if there’s not malice then it’s not a murder. I also think you might be mistaken to say that one can plan to, intend to, and then execute the taking of an innocent human life without malice to some degree. Just how far do you take that idea? Do you say that it’s not murder to kill a bum on the street because he’d be happier dead and society would be happier as well – and that it wouldn’t be murder just because you had no hard feelings toward him but was just trying to make things better for him and the rest of society? Wouldn’t your same reasoning quite easily describe the killing of a bum as an act of benevolence toward the bum, society, and his mother who couldn’t stand to see him out on the streets living in a cardboard box?
But since you call into question my terminology, I would like to point out that murder does not have to have malice in any case. You quote some definitions which do indicate malice – but not all of the definitions require malice.
http://thefreedictionary.com/murder reports that “Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006″ lists “the unlawful intentional killing of one human being by another” as the first noun, and “to kill someone intentionally and unlawfully” as the first verb. Notice that it doesn’t say anything about malice.
Furthermore, again according to The Free Dictionary, “The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003″ also defines (among other things) murder as “To kill (another human) unlawfully.”
Do you see a theme there? “The unlawful intentional killing of one human being by another.” Abortion is premeditated, intentional, and it is unquestionably scientifically the killing of an innocent human life.
There are many laws to protect an innocent person from being killed without a trial. But since we’re discussing legal terms, let’s see what a legal dictionary says about “first degree murder.”
(from http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=754&bold=murder||)
“First Degree Murder [is] … a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), …. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.”
There’s that idea of premeditation! If one can premeditate, plan, intend, and then kill an innocent human life – and it’s not called murder, what is it called?
May I say that an abortion is the intentional premeditated killing of an innocent human life and that is almost a word for word copy of one of the definitions of murder – and abortion certainly qualifies for the spirit of the law as being murder.
You say “The reasoning behind performing an abortion is almost always intended as a form of benevolence toward an individual: A mother who would be better off without a child, and also the child who may be forced to be brought up in a very harsh situation if taken to term.”
But where do you draw the line? What if, when the child is 5,or 15, the mother decides that the child is in terribly harsh situation and would be better off dead – or perhaps the mother decides that she would be better off without a child – do you think she ought to be able to kill her child ? Would that too be a form of benevolence and therefore not murder?
The reason for the act is not the question here. Whether it is first degree murder is the question; If it is first degree murder, (and I demonstrate that it technically qualifies), then it doesn’t matter whether the mother would be better off or the child is in a harsh situation – it’s still murder and it still ought to be illegal.
The difference between killing an unborn baby and a newborn baby are technically insignificant; both are human; both are alive, both are innocent: Either way it is the taking of an innocent human life and it is technically first degree murder.
Science has proven that an unborn human fetus is alive, human, is it’s own DNA code and it’s own individual (Dependant but not a part of it’s mother) and it is legally innocent since it’s never been tried in a quart of law, found guilty, and been sentenced to death.
Under no other circumstances does our legal system allow the intentional premeditated taking of an innocent human life!
I don’t see how I let emotion weaken or otherwise influence my argument, as you claim. But I do notice that your argument was somewhat based on emotion, almost as if you were trying to excuse some murders in cases where the ends justify the means with the emotional appeal that the mother would be better off or the child would be in some “harsh situation.” But ladies and gentlemen, the ends do not justify the means – this is, by technical definition, first degree murder we’re talking about!
I did notice however that you didn’t address my point – which is that under no other conditions (besides abortion) is it legal to intentionally kill an innocent human life with premeditation.
Thanks,
-Jesse
posted September 5, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Senator Obama stated at the Saddleback Civil Forum that we can find
common ground on the question of abortion because he is asking the
question, “How can we reduce the number of abortions?”, while at the
same time he supports the Freedom of Choice Act in the Senate, which
will remove all restrictions on abortion. If the Senator could not
simply say that babies get human rights at birth, instead of saying
that the matter is above his pay grade, then I think his intention
is to deceive the American Public and increase the tax dollars
spent on this legal holocaust. All Christians should be alarmed.
posted September 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm
> All Christians should be alarmed.
Indeed – but not Christians only but all people who believes in the existence of right and wrong beyond “might makes right.”
That’s why we have a justice system!