elected4ever
New member
Amendment 14 Ratified 7/9/1868
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mr. Enyart:
For years I have been laboring under the conviction that Row v Wade was an unconstitutional opinion by the Supreme Court. I have labored to return to the states the authority to ban abortion thinking that this was the answer. To my surprise I found that Row v Wade was not wrongly decided and those states that did have anti abortion laws were in fact in violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. The constitution has not supported the rights of the unborn sense the 14th amendment was ratified.
I only realized this within the last few weeks or so when you suggested the obvious when you stated some facts about Colorado law before Roe v Wade and I ask myself, “Why was this true before Row v Wade was decided in 1973. Now I know why and I am so sorry that my efforts amounted to nothing and the efforts of most if not all the pro-life organizations amounts to nothing except those efforts by groups like yours and those of my church and so many others who seek to pull the mothers from the fire and save the life of an innocent child.
I even believed that Ron Paul labors under such a delusion as I was under. However there is a major difference between Ron Paul and myself. He believes that the states should have the right to continue an abortion policy and that without judicial review. I believe the constitution should defend life and to take no life without due process.
Those who are striving to get Row v Wade overturned are fighting against the wind. It is unconstitutional for the states to defend the life of the unborn as apposed to the right to life of the born. This is why we have accomplished nothing to stem the tide for the last 43 years. Do we really wont to stop legalized abortion in all the states or continue to have to deal with the aftermath of the unintended consequence of the 14th amendment?
The 14th Amendment limits the protections of the constitution to the born and those naturalized. There is no protection for the unborn. The courts, federal and state, must defer to the rights of the born over the unborn because the unborn are not recognizes as having the rights of citizenship. It does not matter if the unborn are considered as having life if they are not afforded the same rights as those born or naturalized. The rights of the born, mother, will take president over the rights of the unborn, baby. The unborn baby only has those rights afforded to it by the mother under the present construction of the 14th amendment. I would like to believe that this is an unintended consequence and not an error of purposeful design. This error is easily remedied by a constitutional amendment. Anything short of that remedy is unworkable in my estimation.
Unless the states are forced by law to defend the rights of the unborn the states will continue to defend the rights of the mother, being born, over the rights of the unborn child. Our religious convections have no standing in a court of law but have great sway in forming the law that governs. We can continue to argue about what should be in the face of what is and continue with the status quo and lose our chance to change the law and make a real difference in the life of all the unborn, not just the lives of the few we manage to pull from the fire.
In Christ
Elected4Ever
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Mr. Enyart:
For years I have been laboring under the conviction that Row v Wade was an unconstitutional opinion by the Supreme Court. I have labored to return to the states the authority to ban abortion thinking that this was the answer. To my surprise I found that Row v Wade was not wrongly decided and those states that did have anti abortion laws were in fact in violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. The constitution has not supported the rights of the unborn sense the 14th amendment was ratified.
I only realized this within the last few weeks or so when you suggested the obvious when you stated some facts about Colorado law before Roe v Wade and I ask myself, “Why was this true before Row v Wade was decided in 1973. Now I know why and I am so sorry that my efforts amounted to nothing and the efforts of most if not all the pro-life organizations amounts to nothing except those efforts by groups like yours and those of my church and so many others who seek to pull the mothers from the fire and save the life of an innocent child.
I even believed that Ron Paul labors under such a delusion as I was under. However there is a major difference between Ron Paul and myself. He believes that the states should have the right to continue an abortion policy and that without judicial review. I believe the constitution should defend life and to take no life without due process.
Those who are striving to get Row v Wade overturned are fighting against the wind. It is unconstitutional for the states to defend the life of the unborn as apposed to the right to life of the born. This is why we have accomplished nothing to stem the tide for the last 43 years. Do we really wont to stop legalized abortion in all the states or continue to have to deal with the aftermath of the unintended consequence of the 14th amendment?
The 14th Amendment limits the protections of the constitution to the born and those naturalized. There is no protection for the unborn. The courts, federal and state, must defer to the rights of the born over the unborn because the unborn are not recognizes as having the rights of citizenship. It does not matter if the unborn are considered as having life if they are not afforded the same rights as those born or naturalized. The rights of the born, mother, will take president over the rights of the unborn, baby. The unborn baby only has those rights afforded to it by the mother under the present construction of the 14th amendment. I would like to believe that this is an unintended consequence and not an error of purposeful design. This error is easily remedied by a constitutional amendment. Anything short of that remedy is unworkable in my estimation.
Unless the states are forced by law to defend the rights of the unborn the states will continue to defend the rights of the mother, being born, over the rights of the unborn child. Our religious convections have no standing in a court of law but have great sway in forming the law that governs. We can continue to argue about what should be in the face of what is and continue with the status quo and lose our chance to change the law and make a real difference in the life of all the unborn, not just the lives of the few we manage to pull from the fire.
In Christ
Elected4Ever
