Charles Carroll Society: The Pro-Life Movement has failed – Now What?

The Charles Carroll Society writes about the pro-life movement, where it should go, and how it is changing in Idaho in  the article The Pro-Life Movement has failed – Now What?

Last week in Nampa, Idaho Republicans met to elect new officers and pass new platform changes, rule changes, and resolutions. Making platform changes, rule changes, and resolutions now means a bit more than it used to. In the past, this “internal” party debate had a limited impact on actual political priorities here in Idaho. It now has slightly more impact.

Last week, the Republican Party of Idaho changed its platform from the “pro-life” approach to an abortion abolitionist approach.  Each Republican candidate in Idaho must state they agree and will governor per the Idaho Republican platform, or they must clearly say what they disagree with.  Voters then get to make an informed decision.

I also am sharing this speech given by Scott Herndon of Abolish Abortion Idaho so that other anti-abortion Republicans, in other States, may use this excellent work to perhaps change their local party from the failed “pro-life” approach to an abortion abolitionist platform. I think this is very important, as we have witnessed Republican nominated SCOTUS judges, in this case, John Roberts, betray the pro-life movement.  Yet again.  We must improvise and adapt if we are going to succeed.

This speech was so well documented, and so moving, that I believe it changed many Republicans perspective on how the pro-life movement has utterly failed to end child-murder. In many places, like in Idaho with the organization, Idaho Chooses Life, it has merely become another part of the money-making establishment.

Many Republicans can understand that several race-baiters do not want things to improve in the Black and Hispanic communities, because then their organizations may not be as important. They want racial division to continue. Republicans must now wake up to the fact that many pro-life organizations do not want abortion to end. After all, it is how they have influence and make money.

 

One issue that divides so-called RINO Republicans from so-called radical Republicans is ending the murder of preborn children. More moderate Republicans may say they are pro-life but seem to accept the current situation. The more liberty-minded conservatives want to end all abortions as soon as possible. Effectively, we are demanding that the State of Idaho approach abortion like more liberal states have approached the legalization of cannabis or illegal immigration. Ignore the federal law. By changing the Idaho Republican Platform, Republican voters want to encourage our elected Republicans to make Idaho an unborn sanctuary state.  Every Republican across the State may now ask any Republican candidate if they agree with abolishing abortion in Idaho.

Scott Herndon of Abolish Abortion Idaho gave a moving speech in front of the Republican Platform Committee, and then this information was shared with all Republicans who attended the annual meeting. This is some of the legal and logical underpinnings of the abortion abolitionist movement.  I thought to share what was said with a larger audience.  Scott Herndon’s speech has been lightly edited. 

The Pro-Life Movement has failed

by Scott Herndon

We believe the State of Idaho should strongly assert its sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. The accumulated usurpations by the Federal Government of Idaho’s state sovereignty has reached a point of complete intolerance. The Idaho Republican Party hereby recommends that the Idaho Legislature and Governor nullify all existing and future unconstitutional federal mandates, federal court opinions, and laws, funded or unfunded, that infringe on Idaho’s 10th Amendment sovereignty.

We also recommend that the State of Idaho continue to request funding and assistance from the Federal Government which complies with the Constitutional provision of the 10th Amendment, and suggest that the State of Idaho resist the withholding of federal funds as a means of forced compliance with the unconstitutional federal mandates and laws.

Article VI, US Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution. Still, no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Nowhere does it say all opinions of the federal judiciary shall bind the states or their officers. Instead, Article VI asserts that each state officer has the right and duty of independent judgment of what is constitutional.

We seem to find ourselves in a pattern of usurpations by federal courts. For example: In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges, the SCOTUS asserted supreme authority over the administration of marriage, even though it has long been an exercise of state authority and is nowhere an enumerated or expressed power of the federal government. [Bard Note:  In truth, in a Christian society the civil State has no control whatsoever over defining a Christian marriage.]

In 2012, The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld by a vote of 5 to 4 the individual mandate to buy health insurance as a constitutional exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

August 2019, the 9th circuit declares Idaho must pay for transgender inmate gender “confirmation” surgery. May 2020, Idaho goes back to federal court to defend its laws banning transgender sex changes on birth certificates. Idaho must protect our ban on transgenders in women’s sports in federal court.

Our founders did not declare the judiciary supreme, and the revolutionary war was not fought to throw off a monarchy in favor of a judicial oligarchy. We know this because, in June of 1788, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81: “A legislature (after a judicial decision) may prescribe a new rule for future cases.”

He further wrote in the same Federalist that “Particular misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature may…happen, but they can never affect the order of the political system. (The judiciary has) comparative weakness, and…total incapacity to support its usurpations by force.”

The SCOTUS almost immediately attempted to define its power when in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” He asserted the right of the judiciary to hold acts of the other branches null and void.

In a 1958 desegregation case, all nine justices of the Earl Warren Court signed an opinion saying “The case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 had declared the basic principle that the Federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.”

We know Presidents have challenged the supremacy of the federal courts. Andrew Jackson allegedly defied the Supreme Court over Worcester v. Georgia (1832), announcing, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” He likewise ignored the court’s McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when the court opined that the Bank of the United States was, in fact, constitutional. Jackson later vetoed the bank’s re-charter and fired a secretary of the treasury to ensure United States deposit removals from the bank.

There will be some cases where we should tolerate usurpations that we disagree with, but there are others where we should not. And Idaho has the legal authority based on the supremacy clause of Article VI, the enumerated powers of Article I section 8 of the US constitution, and the 10th Amendment and the 9th Amendment.

Roe v. Wade and 37 other opinions of the SCOTUS asserted federal court authority over the protection of preborn life, in contravention of the State’s right and duty to protect the inalienable right to life for all humans…(continues)

Beauty Beyond Bones: Corona & the Value of Life

Caralyn, a young, Christian woman trying to make her way in the big city, at Beauty Beyond Bones has a few words about Corona and the Value of Life.

Yesterday I had 6 Skype dates with my friends, and let me tell you — we were all a little loopy. I think I got an abdominal workout from all the laughter. Most of which, was at my embarrassing expense. 🙂

I’ll tell you what. You think you’ve got some idiosyncrasies? Try being cooped up in a 500 sq. foot studio apartment for a week straight, and then let me know!

Things be getting crazy. And by things, I mean…me.

OK — that’s not the purpose of this post, just a little light humor to brighten our cabin fever 🙂 ((And heads up, I’m posting a lot more on Instagram, so please join me for my crazy candid content. — #BananaGate, anyone?))

SO – One of the most interesting things I’ve watched unfold during this Coronavirus hysteria, is that, whether people fully realize it or not, all of these drastic measures, with the social distancing, and the travel bans, and the working from home…these are all measures to protect life. For the first time ever, we’re all on team “prolife!”

We, as a country – and as a global community – are completely upending our lives, tanking our economy, and flirting with the line of sanity, because we’re protecting the elderly and most vulnerable people. It communicates our recognition of the value for human life. And I’ve got to say, as a prolife millennial — this beautiful teamwork and unity is not lost on me.

I went to the grocery store yesterday (it’s basically the only errand you’re “allowed” to run during these quarantined times), and I, of course was nervous about having to be at a public space. As a young woman with an autoimmune disease, I am hyper vigilant about not contracting Corona. So my MO is: head down – get in, get out, touch nothing, speak to no one, then sanitize until the cows come home.

So, you can imagine how, phobic-me was internally freaking out when this darling 72 year old woman struck up a lengthy conversation with me in the avocado aisle of our natural food store.

I made eye contact and gave a little smile at her, which proceeded to launch her into a full, blown monologue — meanwhile I’m just wringing my hands, thinking, “Please just let me get me out of this germ hotbed” and praying to God that this sweet old woman wasn’t contracting COVID19 from the handlebar of her shopping cart.

But in that moment, as I found myself growing irritated, the Holy Spirit moved in my heart, and gave me a spirit of compassion for this woman. And so I actually began listening to what she was saying.

She lived alone. She was 72. And she was saying that she wasn’t worried, because she keeps herself so healthy by dancing. She said she dances the merengue every afternoon in her apartment — and she even whipped out a couple moves right there in the produce section.

And it was at this moment, sharing in this human connection and moment of joy with this older woman — laughing together and smiling, albeit at a “socially distant” 6 feet apart from one another — that I realized that this precious woman was just in need of some love and warmth, during a time where fear and uncertainty are running rampant at an exponential level.

This gentle, kind and eccentric woman could have been my grandmother. And she’s out here – alone – fending for herself against a virus that is being hawked as the “elderly killer.”

As we went our separate ways, I thought to myself: This is who you’re protecting.

She is who we’re protecting. She is why we’re keeping social distance and staying inside.

It is her life – her value – that has the world taking such dramatic efforts. And realizing that, it brought a smile to my face.

Because as a defender of the unborn, I believe that all life – from conception to natural death – has an innate, inherent value that cannot be stripped away or commoditized, or denied.

One of the most common arguments that pro-abortion people make is that by having the baby, it will detrimentally inconvenience the mother.

But here we are, as not just a nation — but an entire global population — “detrimentally inconveniencing” our livelihoods, our relationships, our economies, our physical and mental health, our leisure time, our lives – in order to protect and defend the lives of the most vulnerable.

I just pray that people realize that connection. And that we reevaluate our judgments on how we protect and defend the most vulnerable and truly voiceless population in the womb. According to the WHO, abortion was the leading cause of death in the world in 2019 — with roughly 125,000 deaths per day.

Can you imagine the outcry and the lengths we’d take to stop that, if, as a society, we cared and recognized the value, dignity, and sanctity of life in those little babies?

The world has — rightfully — come to a screeching halt, for — as of publication — 10,025 deaths.

Each one of those precious lives matters. It’s someone’s mother, father, sister, friend, spouse.

So too, do the lives of those babies. All 42 million of them that died in 2019 alone.

Stay healthy. Stay safe. Stay positive. Stay sane. And next time you eat an avocado, please think of our sweet 72 year old friend, busting out the merengue moves in an NYC grocery store.

I love you all.

*

Pat Buchanan: Culture War Comes to Virginia

Pat Buchanan writes this short article on some of the divisions growing in the state of Virginia – The Culture War Comes to the Old Dominion.

…Charlottesville, home to Thomas Jefferson’s University of Virginia, has become famous as the site of a 2017 Klan-Nazi clash with antifa over the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a municipal park. During the clash, protester Heather Heyer was run over and killed.

There followed the inauguration of a new Democratic Governor, Ralph Northam, in 2018 and a new attorney general. Both, it was learned, had masqueraded in blackface in their college days. And two women accused their colleague, new Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax, with rape.

Resignations were demanded. But all three hunkered down, and the crisis abated. Now a new cultural issue has emerged…

Let me go out on a limb: If the Virginia General Assembly votes to replace Robert E. Lee in the U.S. Capitol with a statue of Nat Turner, it will not be the unifying event Wexton imagines…

As the Washington Post writes,

“Virginia is a former Confederate State with strong rural traditions and lax gun laws. Guns represent the strongest, reddest line against the demographic changes that have seen Old Dominion voters usher in a new era of Democratic leadership in recent elections.

“A Nevada-based group called the Oath Keepers said it is sending training teams to help form posses and militia in Virginia. The leader of a Georgia militia called Three Percent Security Force has posted videos and calls to arms on Facebook, urging ‘patriots’ to converge on Richmond.”

Still, the divisions among Virginians are not only over history, heroes and guns, they are also moral and religious…

A year ago, Northam said he supported abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, and beyond, if an abortion were unsuccessful…

..the state of Virginia seceded from the Union as the colony of Virginia had seceded from Great Britain at Philadelphia 84 years before.

Today, it appears a new secession is underway. Virginians are separating from each other over issues as deep and divisive — such as who can take innocent life and when — as those that divided us in 1861.

As are the rest of their countrymen in this time of Trump.

Click here to read the entire article at Buchanan.org.

Fr. John Peck: Poll Finds Overwhelming Majority Want Restrictions on Abortion

From Fr. John Peck, New Poll Finds Overwhelming Majority of Americans Want Restrictions on Abortion.

A new national poll conducted by Marist University finds an overwhelming majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion and would like Roe v. Wade reinterpreted to allow restrictions on abortions.

Three in four Americans (75 percent) say abortion should be limited to – at most – the first three months of pregnancy. This includes most of those who identify as Republicans (92 percent), Independents (78 percent) and a majority of Democrats (60 percent). It also includes more than six in 10 (61 percent) who identify as “pro-choice” on abortion.

The strong support for restricting abortion came despite the fact that a majority of Americans identify as pro-choice (55 percent) — making it clear that the terms pro-choice and pro-life are not accurate in determining or representing the actual views of Americans on abortion.

The Marist Poll follows on the heels of the May 2019 Gallup poll which confirmed 53% of Americans oppose all or most abortions.

The poll also found that a strong majority of Americans disagree with the Roe v. Wade decision that gives states the ability to allow abortions up to birth without any limits…

Click here to read the entire article at Fr. John Peck’s website.