MIS-CARRIAGE and TERMINATION OF ECTOPIC/TUBAL PREGNANCIES HAVE NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED ABORTION (1146 characters)

Prior to Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade 1973, there was no known instance of a woman undergoing criminal investigation for miscarriage. There is therefore no reason to suspect such investigations would occur if the Personhood Amendment was passed. To say it would requires dishonest use of smoke screen or ignorance of the facts. Termination of ectopic/tubal pregnancies have occurred from time immemorial and never considered abortion.  In ectopic pregnancies, the conceived child is implanted outside the uterus (usually in the fallopian tube 6 weeks after conception) and cannot survive.  In the case of tubal pregnancy, the mother’s life is endangered. The purpose of the procedure is not to destroy the child (who cannot survive where implanted) but to save the life of the mother. With current technology, a 20 week unborn child has potential to survive outside the womb—younger than that resuscitation is likely to save the baby’s life. At any point in pregnancy, if every reasonable effort is made to save baby and mother, that is not considered abortion.  In intentional abortion, it is the purpose of the procedure to kill the child.

CONTRACEPTION/BIRTH CONTROL WAS LEGAL PRIOR TO ROE v WADE (1205 characters)

True contraceptives, by definition, prevent conception.  So understand, if there is no conception, there is no abortion. Those in the prolife movement who are against contraceptives and those who think contraceptives are a good idea—both camps have legitimate arguments that do not conflict with being against abortion because true contraceptives stop conception so are not abortive. Since 1936 contraceptives have been legal, so that was true at the time of Roe v Wade 1973. Those in the prolife movement vary regarding their opinion of other forms of birth control that are potentially abortive because usually abortion is a possibility. For example, birth control pills/oral contraceptives act primarily by stopping conception.  If they work by that mechanism, that is not abortion. A back-up mechanism, should conception occur, is failure of the child’s implantation in the uterus—that is abortion. I believe if we were not so flippant about abortion, we would be able to develop effective contraceptives that do not include abortion. Because most current methods of birth control were present and legal in 1973 at the time of Roe v Wade, they are not going to be prohibited by a Personhood Amendment.

THERE IS NO QUESTION AS TO WHEN LIFE BEGINS (739 characters)

That human life begins at conception is not philosophy, theology, or political ideology but established scientific fact.  It was known in 1973 that the unborn child has its own genome, separate from the mother, and distinctively human.  At conception, the entire genome of that new human being is present that will be there at birth and beyond.  Gender, hair and eye color, and other heritable traits are established at conception. There is no difference in the genetics of any of us now and when we were conceived. The only difference between each of us then and now is time and an environment with nutrition and other conditions conducive to growth. Anyone who says they don’t know when human life begins is either ignorant or dishonest.

 

DEHUMANIZING LANGUAGE such as FERTILIZED EGGS (611 characters)

It is not surprising that the opposition focuses on the mother’s choice and rights while completely ignoring the choice and rights and even the existence of the unborn baby. When they call unborn babies “eggs,” “fertilized eggs,” “zygotes,” “embryos” and “fetuses,” they do it because they must deny the unborn child’s humanity in order to promote unmitigated choice, women’s reproductive rights that in reality include the right of mothers to choose to have their child killed. When they talk about “interference with the lives of mothers” they must ignore the deathly interference with the life of the unborn.

 

IN VITRO FERTILIZATION (1210 characters)

It can reasonably be argued that the due process portion of Personhood Amendments removes the risk to the purveyors of IVF and couples seeking IVF-- the purpose of IVF is to bring life, not destroy it. Perhaps that is true. Keep in mind, in the process of IVF, most of the embryos frozen will never be birthed. Societies for Reproductive Medicine say the average success rate of live births with IVF is 32 to 40% under maternal age of 35, and it gets worse from there so that for mothers over age 44, the rate is 3% live births…The implications of that: inestimable number of conceived unborn children destroyed in the process when we say in the older women a 97% failure rate, and a 60+% failure rate in younger women. Infertile couples grieve their incapacity to bear children. Adoption for these couples has brought great joy and richness to their lives from time immemorial. Because of the rabid rate of abortion, infants up for adoption are scarce in this country. The cultural acceptance of IVF promotes abortion by its dehumanization of the unborn as disposable. Anything that promotes abortion limits the options of infertile couples by severely curtailing the number of babies available for adoption.

UNCERTAINTY/ UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES of PERSONHOOD AMENDMENTS (351 characters)

Some of the opposition express concerns that passage of Personhood Amendments are connected with uncertainty and potentially unintended consequences. They do this while ignoring the absolute certainty and intended consequence of abortion: in “successful” abortion, helpless, innocent, defenseless members of our human families are willfully destroyed.

FUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD (418 characters)

Opponents of Personhood Amendments sometimes speak of flight into fantasy fears of the government interfering in bedroom activities, swat team entries into people’s medicine cabinets etc. Reality check: True government intrusion into our pocketbooks exists today when our tax dollars are used against our will to fund Planned Parenthood one of the largest purveyors of abortion and the illegal sale of baby body parts.

 

ABORTION DOES NOT EMANCIPATE WOMEN   (1191 characters)

How we respond to the unborn, the weakest among us, tests our humanity and challenges the depth of our commitment to equality. In spite of massive efforts to hide what abortion is, the woman knows or will figure it out at some point. Whatever life burdens she already carries, having an abortion further saddles her with having killed an innocent, helpless, and fully human being. A fleeting and feeble “freedom” indeed! From conception, we have complete human genetic composition, are alive, and fit the dictionary definition of human life, human being, and person. “Unalienable rights” promoted in our Declaration of Independence, Constitutional Amendments, and laws are based on the “self-evident” special-ness of the human species and the equality of human persons. The legalization of abortion irrationally removed these rights from unborn humans and allows a mother to impose her morals on her child to the point of death.

Since we need laws and laws inevitably impose morality, it seems prudent to promote laws based on  uncompromised reverence for the core dignity and worth of each human person. Liberation for women (and men) is not meaningful unless these basic conditions are met.

ABORTION NEVER NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER (1017 characters)

We don’t place the rights of the unborn over that of the mother—but equal rights to life for all humans, irrespective of age. Everett Koop, prior US Surgeon General, pediatrician for 38 years (witnessing many high risk births), states he never saw a case where abortion was needed to save the mother’s life. An international symposium on maternal healthcare concluded abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. The reason such cases do not exist is if a woman has a medical problem that requires surgery to save the mother’s life, if everything reasonable is done to save both mother and child and the child dies, that is not abortion. It is easy to see the difference between performing a surgery to save the life of the mother and a procedure the intention of which is to destroy the life of the unborn child.  The difference is one of motivation, thought loss of the child can occur in either case.  The more common complications of pregnancy like eclampsia occur after 20 weeks when the child can survive outside the womb. There were two cases in Kalispell within the last 5 years where every effort was made to save both mother and child, and both lived.  If the child had died, that would not be abortion.

RAPE and INCEST (1243 characters)

Killing innocent people is never a solution, and it hurts the mothers…As a physician, I have known women who had abortions done to their babies conceived under rape/incest (preteens or teens at the time), and abortion did not help them. Later in life, when they conceived under better circumstances and studied the life of the unborn, they realized they had killed their innocent baby—it is easier for them to forgive the perpetrator of the crime against them than has been for them to forgive themselves. The rape is of course traumatic, giving birth to a child conceived in rape could certainly be traumatic.  So is the knowledge that you killed your own child. We cannot predict with certainty how a post abortive mother will handle the trauma of abortion, but we can make two statements with 100% certainty: 1. their child is dead. 2. The child’s death doesn’t erase the rape. Most rape victims heal from the harm done to them by others, but the physical, emotional and spiritual scars remain from destroying their unborn children. I have never met one woman who, faced with challenging circumstances and considering abortion, regrets they decided to give birth. There is no question: abortion exploits and trashes women and kills babies.

IMPOSING OUR RELIGION? OUR MORALITY? ALL LAWS IMPOSE MORALITY (1019 characters)

It is said we are wanting to insert religious views into Montana’s constitution. Legislators in opposition to Personhood Amendments have said we are trying to coerce/force others into sharing our view. It is true governments and cultures that place supreme value on human rights and the dignity of each person, it is often on a “religious” basis. We make no apology for that. However, defending the innocent and defenseless is common decency, not religious dogma. Since when do you have to be religious to be against the killing of innocent people? Is there any other case where murder of another person Is considered a right of “privacy?” Abortion allows a mother to impose her morals on her child to the point of death. Furthermore, all laws impose morality, not just laws against the murder of you and me. The power of the jargon about women’s rights, self-autonomy, private medical decisions, choice etc. dissolves when exposed by the light of truth: abortion destroys innocent, helpless, defenseless human beings.

WHAT PASSAGE OF A PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT REFERENDUM WILL DO (459 characters)

Passage of a personhood bill by 100 legislators voting YES or YAY will place it on the November 2018 ballot, and give Montanans the opportunity to vote for or against it.  GIVE VOTERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.  If over 50% of Montanans vote this amendment into our Montana Constitution, the amendment WILL 1.  Protect every innocent person in Montana by law 2. Stop the dehumanizing and killing of thousands of preborn children yearly in Montana  The amendment WILL NOT 1. Ban or criminalize contraception or 2. Prevent mothers from getting health care.

 

WHAT PASSAGE OF A PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT REFERENDUM WILL DO (459 characters)

Passage of a personhood bill by 100 legislators voting YES or YAY will place it on the November 2018 ballot, and give Montanans the opportunity to vote for or against it.  GIVE VOTERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHOOSE.  If over 50% of Montanans vote this amendment into our Montana Constitution, the amendment WILL 1.  Protect every innocent person in Montana by law 2. Stop the dehumanizing and killing of thousands of preborn children yearly in Montana  The amendment WILL NOT 1. Ban or criminalize contraception or 2. Prevent mothers from getting health care.

 

WHY PERSONHOOD AMENDMENTS?  (995 characters)

WHY PERSONHOOD AMENDMENTS? Equal protection under the law is the principle behind personhood for the unborn.  That human life begins at conception is based on science, not philosophy, political ideology or theology.  The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade removed all legal protection from the unborn. Throughout modern history, advancement of civil rights has in every case been because of emphatically demonstrating the personhood of the victim.  During the Roe v Wade hearing, it was admitted that if the personhood of the unborn was established, abortion would have no defense.  Personhood removes the politically charged rhetoric of the debate and replaces it with the commonsense principle that the right to life begins at each human being's biological beginning. It is a concept easy to grasp and embrace, gets to the core of the abortion tragedy and is pivotal to overturning Roe v Wade.Personhood prolife bills (legal language) are the ONLY prolife bills designed to STOP the killing of babies …ALL the rest promote regulating how we kill babies…In pushing for Personhood Amendments, we are promoting the pure uncompromised prolife stand to the legislators and the public.

 

“PROLIFE” PEOPLE WHO SAY THIS IS NOT THE “RIGHT TIME” FOR PERSONHOOD(920 char)

1.How can this not be the “right time” to stop the killing? How can someone say they are prolife if they don’t believe ALL people’s lives should be protected by law?  Our country was founded on the concept of equal justice under the law. Personhood Amendments are based on this concept.2.Courts don't make laws, and anyone waiting for a truly prolife majority in the US Supreme Court is living in unreality.    It needs to end in the States, and Montana can be the first one! The 1973 Roe v Wade decision of the Supreme Court came at a time when 7 of nine Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans. Supposed prolife Republican presidents continue to appoint pro-abortion justices. We of Montana ProLife Coalition don’t fear the Supreme Court but rather, we fear our accountability before a just and righteous God! 3. It is cowardice, hypocrisy, or both to claim to be pro-life, but not support protecting the every innocent Montanan.  4. Individuals and organizations claiming to be prolife have no leadership capabilities in this battle if they fear the reaction by Planned Parenthood and their ilk. 

 

PROTECT ING HUMAN LIFE IS THE PRIMARY ROLE OF GOVERNMENT (470 characters)

Pastor Baldwin states in a 2015 column (http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/  ),among other things:

“I remind you that securing life and liberty is the primary purpose of government (read the Declaration of Independence). Should it surprise us that the same government that feels no responsibility to protect the lives of innocent unborn children would feel any responsibility to protect our liberties? No wonder this government seems hell-bent on destroying our personal liberties: the wanton slaughter of 55 million unborn babies has seared its conscience.”

 

RULE of LAW: the FOUNDATION of THIS NATION (1213 characters)

RULE of LAW: the FOUNDATION of THIS NATION In the Judeo-Christian world view, God is sovereign. He created us free, yet answerable to Him. The right to life and liberty are unalienable because He gave them to us. Every human life is sacred, dignified and of utmost value because God made it so. While humans have this intrinsic dignity, they are also depraved in need of a redeemer and the rule of law. Our country’s founding documents and the writings of our founding fathers reveal this world view. Even the two least religious of our roughly 250 founding fathers—Jefferson and Franklin—promoted Christianity, prayed for Divine Providence and guidance, and saw the critical importance of God, religion and morality in government. Our founding fathers knew the reality of human depravity, recognized the legitimate role of government as protector of life and liberty, and created a form of government based on the rule of law. Laws help advance and protect what a society values. Laws and judicial opinions that support killing innocent humans need to be emphatically opposed. Since we need laws and laws inevitably impose morality, it is prudent to promote laws based on reason and uncompromised reverence for the dignity and worth of each human person.

ABORTION DOES NOT EMANCIPATE WOMEN   (1191 characters)

ABORTION DOES NOT EMANCIPATE WOMEN How we respond to the unborn, the weakest among us, tests our humanity and challenges the depth of our commitment to equality. In spite of massive efforts to hide what abortion is, the woman knows or will figure it out at some point. Whatever life burdens she already carries, having an abortion further saddles her with having killed an innocent, helpless, and fully human being. A fleeting and feeble “freedom” indeed! From conception, we have complete human genetic composition, are alive, and fit the dictionary definition of human life, human being, and person. “Unalienable rights” promoted in our Declaration of Independence, Constitutional Amendments, and laws are based on the “self-evident” special-ness of the human species and the equality of human persons. The legalization of abortion irrationally removed these rights from unborn humans and allows a mother to impose her morals on her child to the point of death.

Since we need laws and laws inevitably impose morality, it seems prudent to promote laws based on  uncompromised reverence for the core dignity and worth of each human person. Liberation for women (and men) is not meaningful unless these basic conditions are met.

 

TO LIBERTARIANS WHO THINK KILLING UNBORN CHILDREN SHOULD BE ONE OF OUR LIBERTIES (418 characters)

From Roger Koopman former Montana legislator, Current Public Service Commissioner, Co-Founder with Rick Jore of Montana ProLife Coalition

 

The beginning of life is the beginning of liberty. A society cannot possibly declare itself free if it does not protect human life.  Defense of life is the most fundamental and constitutional role of government. The "right to choose" hits a constitutional and moral brick wall when that choice abrogates another's fundamental rights. There is no more fundamental right than life itself -- of an innocent human being.

 

ABORTION NEVER NECESSARY TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER (1017 characters)

We don’t place the rights of the unborn over that of the mother—but equal rights to life for all humans, irrespective of age. Everett Koop, prior US Surgeon General, pediatrician for 38 years (witnessing many high risk births), states he never saw a case where abortion was needed to save the mother’s life. An international symposium on maternal healthcare concluded abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of the mother. The reason such cases do not exist is if a woman has a medical problem that requires surgery to save the mother’s life, if everything reasonable is done to save both mother and child and the child dies, that is not abortion. It is easy to see the difference between performing a surgery to save the life of the mother and a procedure the intention of which is to destroy the life of the unborn child.  The difference is one of motivation, thought loss of the child can occur in either case.  The more common complications of pregnancy like eclampsia occur after 20 weeks when the child can survive outside the womb. There were two cases in Kalispell within the last 5 years where every effort was made to save both mother and child, and both lived.  If the child had died, that would not be abortion.

RAPE and INCEST (1243 characters)

Killing innocent people is never a solution, and it hurts the mothers…As a physician, I have known women who had abortions done to their babies conceived under rape/incest (preteens or teens at the time), and abortion did not help them. Later in life, when they conceived under better circumstances and studied the life of the unborn, they realized they had killed their innocent baby—it is easier for them to forgive the perpetrator of the crime against them than has been for them to forgive themselves. The rape is of course traumatic, giving birth to a child conceived in rape could certainly be traumatic.  So is the knowledge that you killed your own child. We cannot predict with certainty how a post abortive mother will handle the trauma of abortion, but we can make two statements with 100% certainty: 1. their child is dead. 2. The child’s death doesn’t erase the rape. Most rape victims heal from the harm done to them by others, but the physical, emotional and spiritual scars remain from destroying their unborn children. I have never met one woman who, faced with challenging circumstances and considering abortion, regrets they decided to give birth. There is no question: abortion exploits and trashes women and kills babies.

PROLIFE STAND IMPOSING OUR RELIGION? OUR MORALITY?  (631 characters)

It is said we are wanting to insert religious views into Montana’s constitution. It is true governments and cultures that place supreme value on human rights and the dignity of each person, it is often on a “religious” basis. We make no apology for that. However, defending the innocent and defenseless is common decency, not religious dogma. Since when do you have to be religious to be against the killing of innocent people. The power of the jargon about women’s rights, self autonomy, private medical decisions, etc dissolves when exposed by the light of truth: abortion destroys innocent, helpless, defenseless human beings. .

THE RIGHT TO LIFE TRUMPS ALL OTHER RIGHTS  (1098 characters)

The right to choose, the right to privacy, financial security..These same arguments have been utilized to defend nearly all violations of human rights—whether slavery, the death camps, child pornography, child labor, etc. Reasonable people recognize certain rights are higher than others, and the human right to life has been historically considered basic, foundational and superior to all other rights. Civilized society restricts an individual’s freedom to choose whenever that choice would harm an innocent person. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him/her from ever exercising their rights. To consider themselves moral, they artificially separate abortion from killing because killing innocent humans is still abhorrent to most. This separation is done by promoting good things like choice and privacy while ignoring the fact that those “tough medical decisions…made between doctor and patient” involve killing a baby. Replace “Every child a wanted child,” with “Every unwanted child a dead child” and their lack of morality remains clear.

WHY SHOW PICTURES OF DEAD ABORTED BABIES?    (768 characters)

“Prochoice” and some Prolife proponents are vehemently against showing photos of aborted babies. They consider it a distasteful, dirty tactic and a cheap trick. It is a tremendous irony that it is not considered appropriate to show pictures of a baby killed by abortions but it is considered appropriate to do nothing to stop the killing of those babies in the pictures. If the distasteful truth shown in pictures is too horrible to look at, perhaps it is too horrible to condone. If people actually looked at these pictures and allowed the truth to settle in, it would end the debate about abortion. Once it is clear that abortion is nothing but the killing of children, it is impossible for most people to imagine they are assuming high moral ground in defending it.

PROLIFE ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT PERSONHOOD (870 characters)

We have the support of the largest US Catholic grassroots prolife organization (American Life League), the largest Catholic international prolife organization (Human Life International), renowned Catholic legal organizations (including Thomas More Law Center), Montana Catholics for Life, and in my experience, the majority of Montana Catholics. We also have the support of Montana Assemblies of God, Lutheran Missouri-Synod, Personhood USA, Central Montana Right to Life, and American Right to Life, to name a few. Why this support? Because the designation of personhood to the unborn is obvious and compelling to true advocates of human rights. It is not ideology but science that human life begins at conception, and there is no other logical basis for personhood than being a member of the human race.

 

SEVEN CATEGORIES of PRO-ABORTION ARGUMENTS.(1221 characters)

1. autonomy is the highest virtue: a mother’s right to choose trumps her child’s right to life; pandering to a rightful desire for autonomy ignoring it as the autonomy to kill another human being who has no choice—autonomy not allowed by laws that protect your life and mine.

2. certain lives are not worth living/some are more valuable than others; destroy those less worthy

3. a way to combat over population—kill those who can’t defend themselves,

4. too much economic cost of giving birth to and raising unwanted children—every child a wanted child, every unwanted child a dead child.

5. Victims of rape and incest who get pregnant are doubly traumatized by the birth. As though the knowledge that you killed your own child isn’t traumatizing?!

6. Until we have created an environment so wonderful, where mothers don’t choose to kill their unborn children—laws need to support their right to kill. We don’t say, rather than making child molestation, human trafficking, rape etc. illegal, create the cultural environment where these crimes don’t occur.

7. I am personally against abortion, but I don’t have a right to tell someone else what to do. Apply that one to other murder, rape, etc. and it is clearly nonsensical.

“PROCHOICE” folks are against late term abortions and abortion for convenience (463 characters)

Most people who consider themselves prochoice are usually against late term abortions and abortion for birth control —done because the child was conceived at an inconvenient time. At least 97% of abortions are done for birth control, to end the life conceived at an inconvenient time in the mother’s life. In other words, they support abortion rights for the < 3% where they consider abortion acceptable, even though they’d be against the 97% killings that occur.

© Copyright 2017 MontanaProlifeCoalition.org, all rights reserved.