WHY STATE PERSONHOOD CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS?
WHAT WILL IT DO?
HUMAN RIGHTS BASED ON THE SANCTITY OF HUMAN LIFE MUST BE UPHELD
The proposed Personhood Amendment provides opportunity to demonstrate the sacred humanity of the unborn and the horrific injustice of abortion.
THE PRINCIPLE OF PERSONHOOD
Every human being, from the moment life begins, deserves equal protection under the law. This is the principle of personhood. The 1973 Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade removed all legal protection from an entire class of human beings, the unborn.
WHAT A PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE WILL DO
Not only do state personhood initiatives bring the tragedy of abortion to the attention of the people, they allow legislators to use it to support prolife legislation and defend it in the courts. It will not outlaw abortion but will be a stepping stone for future overturning Roe v Wade.
PERSONHOOD A VITAL PART OF OVERALL STRATEGY
Personhood is the only strategy on the forefront that gets right at the key weaknesses of Roe v Wade. The root of legalization of abortion is the denial of personhood and the false doctrine of judicial supremacy. Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority decision in Roe v Wade himself said that if the personhood of the unborn was established, then their right to life is guaranteed specifically by the 14th Amendment. That is why we say the personhood of the unborn is pivotal to overturning Roe v Wade.
JUDICIAL & FEDERAL SUPREMACY ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
What is meant by judicial and federal supremacy is the false doctrine that the federal government has broad sweeping power over states and the judicial branch has power over the legislative and executive branches. That goes directly against our US Constitution that strictly limits the power of the federal government over the states and grants balance among the three powers.
DIVISION AMONG PROLIFE LEADERSHIP
Acceptance of unconstitutional judicial supremacy is one basis for the failure of the prolife movement and also the division in the prolife movement leadership. Most Prolife groups that oppose state personhood constitutional amendments support instead a federal human life amendment. They say “Roe v Wade is a federal not state issue” and therefore state initiatives will not provide a direct challenge to Roe v Wade. They say personhood initiatives are not realistic, are unconstitutional and therefore will cause more problems for the prolife movement.
Notice, these organizations accept judicial supremacy as their beginning point, their premise. That is where we at Montana ProLife Coalition part ways. It is not that we differ in our desire to end abortion or our acknowledgement that life begins at conception. We join together in efforts involving prayer, support of crisis pregnancy centers, and so on. We differ in our legislative approach.
SUCCESSFUL NON-LEGISLATIVE PROLIFE STRATEGIES
There is little doubt that non-legislative strategies have saved lives. Individual and collective prayer, fasting, crisis pregnancy centers, peaceful picketing and other loving approaches at abortion mills have all saved lives. They are a critical part of fighting abortion. Without prayer, we’d be nowhere. Unfortunately, thousands of unborn children are still destroyed each day by abortion in this nation.
OTHER PROLIFE LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES HAVE FAILED
Let’s look at the legislative prolife alternatives to personhood; all have failed repeatedly for 36 years.
1. The failed approach of a federal human life amendment: Efforts toward a federal human life amendment entail voting in a president who will appoint prolife US Supreme Court JUSTICES. SEVEN of THE NINE current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were the US justices at the time of Roe v Wade. Outgoing pro-abortion justice Souter was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990, now to be replaced by a President Obama appointee. If we did, by some miracle, get five of nine, or thinking big, nine of nine solid prolife justices, that could usher in a federal life amendment. We haven’t had 5 of 9 since the 1960s, so is not likely to happen, but even if we did that doesn’t make the false doctrine of judiciary supremacy constitutional.
2. The failed approach of parental notification, provisions for fetal pain alleviation, regulation of abortion clinics: these efforts
usually lose in the legislature, and even if they do win in the
legislative branch, they are shot down by the Montana Supreme Court. They lose based on the right to privacy in the Montana Constitution being stretched beyond all sensibility. Besides that, these approaches carry a premise that abortion should be allowed if you meet certain qualifications.
3. The failed approach of voting prolife candidates into local, state and US political offices: While it is beneficial and correct to vote for only prolife candidates, that has not made any difference in protection of the unborn. It would make an enormous difference if we did away with judicial supremacy and restored this nation to the law of the land: the US Constitution. Without overturning judicial supremacy, we will not be able to do away with abortion.
That leaves State Personhood Amendments. While A PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT does not outlaw abortion, it is a legal stepping stone toward that end. It is a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v Wade. There are no reasonable arguments against it as it is based on logic, science, and common decency.