Personhood movement explodes in 32 states

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER


World Net Daily ran the following front page story today. It's great seeing the Personhood movement take off like this. The folks behind this movement have really worked their tails off and it's paying off big-time!

Here's the story...
Pro-lifers: Wildfire effort could be death blow to abortion in Obamacare

A pro-life movement seeking to guarantee basic human rights to unborn babies is exploding in 32 states – and leaders say it could be just the key to nullifying abortion provisions in President Obama's health-care "reform."

While abortion was not specifically mentioned in earlier bills under consideration, H.R.3962, unveiled by Nancy Pelosi this week, does in fact state abortion is to be covered. Concerns are mounting that whatever the final form of the legislation, the procedure will become more accessible, requiring health insurance companies to fund abortions.

Gualberto Garcia Jones is director of Personhood Colorado and a legal analyst for Personhood USA, a grassroots Christian organization that seeks to legally define every unborn baby as a "person" protected by God-given and constitutionally protected rights, including the right to life. His organization was set up to support personhood efforts across America through legislation and constitutional amendments.

"We're trying to end abortion right now," Garcia Jones told WND. "All of our laws that we're promoting are direct challenges to Roe v. Wade. If we can get a challenge up to the Supreme Court, then that's the ideal thing. That's what we're trying to do."

The personhood approach within the pro-life movement was sparked by a statement in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that opened the doors for legal abortion in the U.S.

Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, "The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

According to the movement, if every unborn baby is defined as a person, each baby will be legally guaranteed the same right to life as all Americans.

"We believe – and a lot of the justices on the Supreme Court agree with us – that there is no right to privacy that would allow abortion," Garcia Jones said. "Since it's not mentioned directly in the 14th Amendment, we could use the 10th Amendment and the states' rights to police themselves and to pass laws regulating morality and health and safety to regulate abortion so it's not permitted. Basically it would be treated the same way as a homicide, where a state can regulate how they punish it and how they try to prevent it, but they could never allow it."

He continued, "We believe respect for life is in the Constitution, so therefore a state could never say you can kill a person."

FULL STORY
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
:up:

that will cover it. Regarding Nancy Pelosi ugly pix, consider PIF
 

NigeM

New member
Hmmm I am not sure how I feel about this. I don't want to anger anyone but I am pro abortion I am afraid. I really think it has so much to do with the woman's decision...
 

WizardofOz

New member
Hmmm I am not sure how I feel about this. I don't want to anger anyone but I am pro abortion I am afraid. I really think it has so much to do with the woman's decision...

:sigh:

That tragic stance aside, should public funds be used to fund abortion? This is a firestorm waiting to brew. Tax dollars cannot be used to fund abortion in any kind of way if any public option is indeed passed.

This is going well beyond pro-choice vs. pro-life
 

keypurr

Well-known member
Good point. But I don't like the church on the connor not paying taxes on all the land they own. I have to pay more to make up for it. I guess the world is just not fair is it? Maybe we should just think about the common good and not just what we think is right. Millions of folks need insurance, that should take more consideration than a few who might abuse the system. People will always find ways to steal from us.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Hmmm I am not sure how I feel about this. I don't want to anger anyone but I am pro abortion I am afraid. I really think it has so much to do with the woman's decision...
Does the woman get to decide if she's the one in the womb?
 

elohiym

Well-known member
I really think it has so much to do with the woman's decision...

Sure, just as any murder has to do with the murderer's decision.

Would it be alright with you if it was legal for me to murder you by tearing you apart limb-by-limb?

This is where you argue "no, because I am a person." :plain:
 

DocJohnson

New member
There is a downside to this movement. Pro-life groups who forced Republicans to vote for the amendment prohibiting funding of abortions via the "public option" may now be responsible for the bill passing in the first place. The intent may have been good... but, ironically, the absence of the amendment might have brought the bill down to defeat. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) says there is "no guarantee" the amendment will survive anyway.

:mmph:
 

DocJohnson

New member
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

In doing so, the president would be heeding the call of abortion rights supporters like Planned Parenthood that have called the White House their "strongest weapon" in keeping such restrictions out of the bill.
source

Since when does the President have line-item veto authority? That would have come in handy during previous administrations. :mmph:
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod suggested Sunday that President Obama will intervene to make sure a controversial amendment restricting federal funding for abortion coverage is stripped from final health care reform legislation.

Since when does the President have line-item veto authority? That would have come in handy during previous administrations. :mmph:

Back in February, when Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama would like to see a return of the line item veto, he replied:

"I can assure you that he'd love to take that for a test drive."

I can see the abortion amendment being just the vehicle.
 

DocJohnson

New member
Back in February, when Robert Gibbs was asked if Obama would like to see a return of the line item veto, he replied:

"I can assure you that he'd love to take that for a test drive."

I can see the abortion amendment being just the vehicle.

How convenient. It wasn't okay when a Republican was in office, but now that they control everything, it's just fine. Go figure.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hmmm I am not sure how I feel about this. I don't want to anger anyone but I am pro abortion I am afraid. I really think it has so much to do with the woman's decision...

Very much so ... I mean after all ownership means everything! I am sure that slave owners and parents who beat their children would agree with this sentiment also.

Whenever a decision takes away the ability for another individual to consent to being harmed (or killed in the case of abortion), the decision shouldn't be lawful.
 

mmstroud

Silver Member
Silver Subscriber
What I want to know is, how in the world do any of the minority groups in the United States allow an argument to be made that an unborn child is not a person? The issue of personhood has only EVER been used as a means to deny human rights. The whole idea is preposterous, not to mention repulsive. :mmph:
 
Top