Personhood is a new and rapidly growing
movement within the Pro-Life Community that seeks to establish a
legal definition of a person that includes unborn children, thus
making killing an unborn child a crime punishable under existing
murder laws.
Federal Personhood Amendments (aka Human Life Amendments) were first introduced
by the Pro-Life Movement in the early 1970s
and continued to be heavily promoted into the late 1980s.
During this time, the adoption of a Federal Personhood Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had become the Pro-Life
Movement's top goal -- knowing it would easily overturn Roe
v. Wade and end abortion. In the last 35 years over
300 amendments were introduced into divisive Congress all of them
getting nowhere. Since the 1990s, the Pro-Life
Movement had mostly given up on a Federal Personhood Amendment and in
overturning Roe - getting lost in projects that
only attempted to "chip away" at Roe instead of confronting
it head-on. Roe v. Wade is the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court
decision that had the effect of legalizing abortion
throughout the United States.
In 2005, the Original Pro-Life Strategy,
Personhood, was re-launched in the form of the first ever State Personhood Amendment introduced
in U.S. History. The goal of both
state and federal amendments were to establish a legal
definition of a person that includes unborn children, thus
making killing an unborn child a crime punishable under
existing murder laws. Establishing the Right to
Life of unborn children through a State Personhood Amendment
has now become the explosive answer to ending abortion and
is taking the Pro-Life Movement by storm. The once
dead and unreachable goal of establishing personhood in the
U.S. Constitution has gained new life in a dynamic and
rapidly growing movement for Personhood.
"[If the]
suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion
rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then
guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
From the
1973 Roe v. Wade Decision (Justice Blackmun Writing for the Majority
Opinion)
… this
would be the equivalent-after the child was born, if the mother thought it
bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed.
Isn't that correct?
Roe v. Wade was the 1973
U.S. Supreme Court
decision overturning a Texas anti-abortion law, which had
the effect of legalizing abortion throughout the United
States. Several Human Life Amendments (aka Personhood
Amendments) were drafted and proposed in Congress in the
early 1970s. One main version1
became popular in the early 70s with two other popular
versions, the Paramount1
and the Unity Human Life Amendment1
being drafted over the next decade. The target of these
amendments were the United States Constitution. (view
early HLAs)
The
beginning of the modern Pro-Life Movement we know today was
started in the early 1980s and gained a great ally in
President Ronald Reagan (see
Reagan's Proclamation). During this time the main
focus of the Pro-Life Movement was the passage of a Federal Personhood Amendment
to the U.S Constitution. It was common knowledge that the
Federal Personhood Amendment
was the key to overturning Roe v. Wade and abortion in
America. The reason is that once you legally recognize
unborn children as persons they have rights. A Right
to Life has more weight than a woman's right to make her own
medical decisions (i.e. to have an Abortion, which is how
the courts view it).
Because this was so important, the Pro-Life Movement lobbied
every person running for Congress and in other top
leadership positions around the country to make a public
stand in support of the Federal Human Life Amendment.
Over the years more than 330 different proposals being
called a Human Life Amendment have been introduced in
Congress. In over 35 years not one Human Life
Amendment has gotten anywhere.
The end of the Federal Personhood Movement was over.
The Federal Personhood Amendment
The Death of a
Vision
Unfortunately, since the 1980s the Federal Personhood Amendment
was dropped as a viable project by the Pro-Life Movement due
to the difficulty in getting it passed through a very
diverse and partisan Congress. The Pro-Life Movement,
disheartened, took up projects not to overturn Roe and
abortion but to only scale back abortion as much as they
could legally through state and federal legislation. The Pro-Life Movement,
for the most part, had given
up on overturning Roe v. Wade. It was now only spoken
of as a vague ideal or a 'long term strategy' and left
the Pro-Life Movement seeking alternative strategies.
Alternative Strategy # 1
Republican
Appointed Judges
One early
adopted strategy was to focus on electing
Republican Presidents so they would
nominate Pro-Life judges to the Federal Courts and the
U.S. Supreme Court.
This strategy has yet to
yield any success and had seriously
backfired
because it effectively made
murders of our Pro-Life judges.
The main reason this strategy has failed so miserably,
was in the way it was implemented by national Pro-Life
organizations and leaders. They taught a 'legal
positivist' position --
that our government officials
should always obey the government's and courts' view
of what was right and wrong instead of God's. This
meant that no lower court Pro-Life judges should
ever issue a ruling that challenged higher courts
and established rulings like Roe. Even though
by doing so they issued unjust rulings that allowed for the murder of
unborn children.
The correct
implementation would be to promote the appointment
of Pro-Life judges who would never issue rulings
that allowed innocent human beings to be killed no
matter what. This promotes basic justice
("Self-evident truths") and God's standard
"Do Not Murder!" Also, if lower
court judges don't issue rulings in opposition to
Roe then it will never be overturned because that is
how the system works. Some say that these judges
would just get kicked out of their position. Maybe so, but it is
better than becoming accomplices to murder. After
World War II, Nazi Germany Judges were convicted of
murder for that same thing, allowing the innocent to
be killed. The German judges justified
themselves by saying
they were just doing their job in upholding the law
or a higher court ruling.
Our Pro-Life judges have now
become active participants by ruling in favor of the
unjust
killing of innocent children. They were now corrupted
by the system because they did not stand up against murder
of the innocent.
Those Republican appointed judges have
now done more to hurt the
Pro-Life Movement and keep Roe v. Wade alive than Democrat
appointed judges.
Alternative Strategy # 2
The "Limited Abortion" Coalition
The now faded goal of ending abortion was replaced by what
is called the 'Limited Abortion' coalition
or
'Incremental'
Pro-Lifers.
If you try to remember recent Pro-Life activities since the
early 1990s you will find one shocking fact. Most,
if not all, legislative/political activity has centered
around not ending abortion once and for all but in only
'limiting abortion.' This strategy led the
Pro-Life Movement in getting bogged down in a "Nazi Germany"
type debate: while accepting the killing of Jews, they focused on banning Poison A for the more humane
Poison B. Laws based
upon this strategy, to 'regulate' abortion, still ended with:
"... and then you can kill the baby."
The "Limited Abortion" coalition's concept was to focus on
'chipping away' at Roe v. Wade through state legislation, in
an attempt to limit abortion, with some unexplainable reason
that it would "eventually" overturn Roe v. Wade. In
over 15 years this strategy has not gotten anywhere close to
overturning Roe v. Wade. Their response to the
strategy's failure is to give it more time. When we
look at the great loss of life in allowing
10, 20, or 30 more years waiting for this strategy to
possibly work,
it just is not a viable option.
This cancerous idea, promoted
by key national Pro-Life & Pro-Family leaders and
organizations, had been adopted by many other Pro-Life
leaders and organizations across America as their main focus
also. Anyone who now promotes other Pro-Life projects,
like Personhood,
and/or contradicts the 'Limited Abortion" strategy is
dismissed as unwise and classified as a 'danger' to the
Pro-Life Movement. While this is changing, many older,
well established organizations still view this as the
only way. It's interesting to note that those same
organizations who are against state Personhood
Amendments (aka Human Life Amendments) once rallied the
Pro-Life Movement in the 1970s for a Federal Amendment.
While some of the legislation has done some immediate good
it also did a very dangerous thing,
it took the Pro-Life Movement's attention, focus, and
resources away from establishing Personhood through a Personhood Amendment, the only way
to end abortion once and for all. A true Personhood Amendment would in one precise action accomplish all of the
goals of those 'limiting abortion' laws and more. It would end
abortion once and for all throughout the United States. It would overturn Roe
v. Wade.
"[If the]
suggestion of personhood [for the unborn] is established, the [abortion
rights] case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then
guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
From the
1973 Roe v. Wade Decision (Justice Blackmun Writing for the Majority
Opinion)
The Partial Birth
Abortion Ban:A Publicity Stunt
"Ending
partial-birth abortion… does not save a single
human life."
-
Dr. James Dobson
The Partial
Birth Abortion Ban (PBA) Campaign took 15 years
away from the Pro-Life Movement along with
millions upon millions in resources ALL TO
SAVE ZERO UNBORN CHILDREN. Bob
Enyart and the elders of Denver Bible Church met
with Focus on the Family in 2006 (info in video
below) and Focus on the Family leaders admitted
that they knew it would not save one child, and
that they had not made that clear to their
listeners and readers, but felt they needed
something to keep abortion in front of the
public's eyes.
A
Must See!
A Very Powerful 50
Minute Presentation on Personhood for the Unborn and Pro-Life
Strategies That Kill.
Studies in the areas of early American history, the founding
fathers, and our system of government reveal that our
state governments
have always been the
primary sources of politically protecting our God-given rights2,
not the Federal Government. The Pro-Life Movement’s
Personhood Strategy through a Federal Personhood Amendment
was on target but
unfortunately impassable in
Congress. The answer is a State Personhood Amendment.
Up until 2005, one had never been introduced or tried in
U.S. History.
Legal studies
show that it would have the same effect of overturning
Roe v. Wade.
All
previous legal and legislative challenges and strategies by the Pro-Life Movement were viewed in the
courts as attempting to
“TAKE AWAY”
(“a
negative”) from the rights of a
woman. The recognition of unborn children as persons
does not “TAKE AWAY" from the mother but
“RECOGNIZES” unborn children
(“a positive”)
with all legal
rights and standing as persons in all courts. Once a state recognizes
unborn children in their constitution (not laws), all federal
courts will be legally maneuvered to recognize unborn children as
persons also, forcing the overturn of Roe v. Wade.
In the oral arguments in Roe, both the abortion lawyer and
the Supreme Court Justices clearly admitted that IF it was
established that an
unborn child is a person then they would not have a case.
Pro-Life
Dave (David Rogers) of Biloxi, Mississippi introduced the Ultimate Human Life Amendment(UHLA), the
first State Personhood Amendment in American
history. The UHLA's carefully constructed wording
was designed to specifically overcome key issues the U.S. Supreme Court had in Roe
v. Wade. (see How to Overturn
Roe) Remember the Roe v. Wade decision was an issue
that came up from the State of Texas and eventually led to the
U.S. Supreme Court's making abortion legal in all states.
A State Personhood Amendment is the answer
to ending abortion! AND one State's Personhood Amendment just
might be capable of knocking it out in all states!
NO State Personhood Amendment has EVER been adopted yet...
A State Personhood Amendment has never been adopted in U.S. History.
The Pro-Life Movement has always believed concerning the
proposed U.S. Personhood Amendment that upon legal recognition of
unborn children as persons using a constitutional process would
resoundingly overturn Roe. v. Wade.
God-given and Politically Protected Rights….
All Rights in our system of government originally go back to the Bible
and God, called "God-given Rights" and "Inalienable Rights". You would be correct to say that all people
should have a Right to political and religious speech without being
jailed. In America this
“God-given” Right is “Politically Protected” in our state
and federal constitutions. But if you go to Saudi Arabia
and try to exercise that God-given Right then you most
likely will be
arrested, jailed, and may be stoned to death or lose your head at the chopping
block because that God-given
Right is not “Politically
Protected” by the Saudi Arabian government. So the idea in
general is to identify and understand our God-given Rights
and make sure that they are protected in our state
constitutions.
Pro-Life
Dave (David Rogers) of Biloxi, Mississippi introduced the