Yesterday I sent out the following email for response:

    I’m curious what you all think about this?
    Could you all support this?

    Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life

    Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity and dignity of innocent human life.

    We have made progress. The Supreme Court has upheld prohibitions against the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion. States are now permitted to extend health-care coverage to children before birth. And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act has become law; this law ensures that infants who are born alive during an abortion receive all treatment and care that is provided to all newborn infants and are not neglected and left to die. We must protect girls from exploitation and statutory rape through a parental notification requirement. We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life. We salute those who provide them alternatives, including pregnancy care centers, and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed our legislative initiatives.

    Respect for life requires efforts to include persons with disabilities in education, employment, the justice system, and civic participation.

    In keeping with that commitment, we oppose the non-consensual withholding of care or treatment from people with disabilities, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide, which endanger especially those on the margins of society.

    Because government should set a positive standard in hiring and contracting for the services of persons with disabilities, we need to update the statutory authority for the AbilityOne program, the main avenue by which those productive members of our society can offer high quality services at the best possible value. (Emphasis added)

Here are some of the responses I got back:

    “Excellent Dave…the only difference with an unborn child and any other ‘protected’ group is that they have no voice of their own…this would provide that voice!”

    “This captures our pro-life message to a T…are you posting this somewhere?”

    “Yes. The disability clause is a frightening reflection of the potential of Progressive thought. That we would need to say this in America speaks volumes…yet it’s not new. I recall a very radical left wing “progressive” professor in 1970 who was astonished at my rejection of his view that people with serious disabilities such the retarded be eliminated as a burden to society.”

    “Having read the proposed amendment Dave sent and then reading all the other comments it appears to me we have captured the exact sentiment of our Christian nation as it is. I believe all of us are 100% against any kind of abortion and pray about it in private, small groups and probably even in church. We are fighting a spiritual battle and must do all we can to pursue that fight with the full armor of God on. I do agree that a written amendment or at the very least a court judgment (i.e. Roe v Wade) to help overcome the unsaved side of our society is important. If this sounds like wavering it is not intended to only a simple Christian man trying to understand the worldly views we face today.”

Two men I greatly admire sent the following responses: Frank Salvato of the New Media Journal touches on the issue of changing culture’s view of abortion and Gregg Jackson comments on the last response above and gives what the Church’s role has been and should be in the abortion issue.

Frank wrote:

    I stand with your commitment to the unborn, but, as I have expressed privately, I worry that legislation – even in the form of a Constitutional Amendment – could simply be “unlegislated” by an election such was the election of 2006 and then again in 2008. I have great reservations about the potency of legislating a solution to this societal issue. It provides a false sense of security – for lack of a better term – and, for many, would substitute for the hard work of winning hearts and minds societally so that the solution can be one of great potency.

    Let’s face it, crack is outlawed and people still use crack. Outlawing something doesn’t stop it. Case in point, Prohibition.

    The only real, potent and permanent (as permanent as it can be) solution to this true atrocity is to commit in total to the re-education of the public, the exposure of the abortionist lobby’s link to Progressivism, Planned Parenthood and Eugenics, and the urging of the medical community to finally determine that life begins at conception with the first division of cells.

    Legislating a solution simply leaves the “solution” vulnerable to politics. Creating societal change eliminates the “want and desire” for the procedure.

    Make abortion “uncool” and you win. Make it “against the law” and you achieve a false victory.

    Just my two cents…

Gregg wrote:

    There is no need for a human life (federal amendment) since the Declaration, our Founding National Charter and part of the Organic Law of our nation, and the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution (specifically the 5th and 14th amendments) already guarantee the inalienable right to life.

    A federal amendment is both superflous and highly unlikely to ever pass.

    While I do support state Personhood amendments, I firmly believe that killing babies will only end when God’s people demand that our own elected representatives (whom we elect) uphold their constitutionally sworn oath to protect and defend the inalienable right to life from the very moment of conception to natural death for every American citizen born in the image of God.

    The slaughter of 3,000 innocent babies occurs in our country daily because we who call ourselves Christians accept the false premise that it is “legal” to kill babies. Until Christians band together and reject this fallacious premise, we will only continue to spin our wheels re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as she sinks…

    No need to “outlaw” something that isn’t legal (since no law is legitimate if is contrary to God’s law as MLK was fond of saying) in the first place.

    Abortion won’t end until Christians stop compromising on this issue and demand that the abortuaries be closed down immediately.

I was somewhat flattered that some of the respondents thought I actually wrote this proposal, however this is not a proposal. I copied it from a previously published document.

I changed one word in the writing.

Instead of…

    “and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed our legislative initiatives.”

…it actually reads…

    “and we take pride in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.”

Any guesses to the source of this resolution?

If you guessed the 2008 Republican Party Platform, give yourself a gold star!

As Steve Deace has so eloquently stated before, if only Republicans would implement the Republican Party Platform we wouldn’t have the problems we have.

More on that tomorrow…

    Copyright © 2010


, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,