Abortion or Life
How states can man-up and stop abortion
By Publius Huldah
June 23, 2019
If the American People (and American lawyers) had been properly educated, they would know that our federal Constitution created a federal government of enumerated powers only, and that most of the powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large are listed at Art. I, §8, clauses 1-16, U.S. Constitution.
"Abortion" is not listed among the enumerated powers. Therefore, Congress has no power to make any laws about abortion for the Country at Large.1 And since "abortion" isn't "expressly contained" in the Constitution, it doesn't "arise under" the Constitution; and since state laws restricting abortion don't fit within any of the other categories of cases the federal courts are authorized by Art. III, §2, cl. 1 to hear, the federal courts also have no power over this issue.
So from the beginning of our Constitutional Republic until 1973, everyone understood that abortion is a state matter. Accordingly, many State Legislatures enacted statutes restricting abortion within their borders.
But in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Roe v. Wade and made the absurd claim that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment contains a "right" to abortion. In "Why Supreme Court opinions are not the 'Law of the Land,' and how to put federal judges in their place," I showed why the Supreme Court's opinion in Roeis unconstitutional.
But Americans have long been conditioned to believe that the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.2 Accordingly, for close to 50 years, American lawyers and federal judges have mindlessly chanted the absurd refrain that "Roe v. Wade is the Law of the Land"; state governments slavishly submitted; and 60 million babies died.
So who has the lawful authority to stop abortion?
1. Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion in federal enclaves and military hospitals
Over the federal enclaves, Congress has constitutional authority to ban abortion: Pursuant to Article I, §8, next to last clause, Congress is granted "exclusive Legislation" over the District of Columbia, military bases, dock-Yards, and other places purchased with the consent of the State Legislatures (to carry out the enumerated powers).3 Article I, §8, cl.14 grants to Congress the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the military forces. Accordingly, for the specific geographical areas described at Article I, §8, next to last clause, and in U.S. military hospitals everywhere, Congress has the power to make laws banning abortion.
2. But federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion
Article III, §2, cl. 1 lists the ten categories of cases federal courts have authority to hear. They may hear only cases:
But in Federalist No. 80 (2nd para), Hamilton states that cases "arising under the Constitution" concern...the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union [the U.S. Constitution]....5 [boldface added]
Obviously, "abortion" is not "expressly contained" in the Constitution. So it doesn't "arise under" the Constitution. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court had to redefinethe word "liberty," which appears in §1 of the 14th Amendment, in order to claim that "abortion" "arises under" the Constitution.Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says:
3. States must reclaim their traditionally recognized reserved power to restrict abortion!
Since "abortion" is a power reserved by the states or the People, state legislatures should reenact state statutes restricting abortion.
When a lawsuit is filed in federal district court alleging that the state statute violates the U.S. Constitution, the state attorney general should file a motion in the court to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He should point out that the court has no constitutional authority to hear the case; that Roe v. Wade is void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; that "abortion" is one of the many powers reserved by the states; and that the state legislature properly exercised its retained sovereign power when it re-enacted the statue restricting abortion.
The state attorney general should also advise the court that if the court denies the motion to dismiss, the state will not participate in the litigation and will not submit to any pretended orders or judgments issued by the court.
Now! Here is an interesting fact which everyone would already know if they had had a proper education in civics: Federal courts have no power to enforce their own judgments and orders. They must depend on the Executive Branch of the federal government to enforce their judgments and orders.7
Since President Trump has proclaimed his opposition to abortion, who believes that he would send in the National Guard to force the state to allow physicians to kill more babies within the state? Please understand: An opinion or ruling from a federal court means nothing unless the Executive Branch chooses to enforce it.8THIS IS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH'S "CHECK" ON THE JUDICIAL BRANCH! If the president, in the exercise of his independent judgment, thinks that an order or judgment of a federal court is unconstitutional, it is his duty imposed by his oath of office 9 to refuse to enforce it.
4. The modern day approach to dealing with absurd Supreme Court opinions
But most pro-life lawyers will tell you we should proceed as follows: That we need to get a number of states to pass "heartbeat laws." Pro-abortion forces will then file lawsuits in federal district courts alleging that the heartbeat laws violate Roe v. Wade and are "unconstitutional." Most states will lose in the federal district courts. But they can appeal to one of the 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. Most of the states will also lose in the circuit court. But if just one circuit court rules in favor of the heartbeat law, then there will be "conflict" among the circuits and the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to hear the issue. This will give the U.S. Supreme Court the opportunity (years from now) to revisit Roe v. Wade, and they might overrule it!
But I suggest, dear reader, that we must purge our thinking of the assumption that we can't have a moral and constitutional government unless five judges on the Supreme Court say we can have it. Since it is clear that federal courts have no constitutional authority over abortion, why do we go along with the pretense that they do? Why not just man-up and tell them, "You have no jurisdiction over this issue"?
Our framers would be proud of you.
1 Accordingly, the federal Heartbeat Bill and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, to the extent they purport to apply outside federal enclaves and military hospitals, are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large.
2 The Supreme Court was created by Art. III, §1, U.S. Constitution, and is completely subject to its terms. As a mere "creature," it may not re-write the document under which it holds its existence.
3 In Federalist No. 43 at 2, James Madison explains why Congress must have complete lawmaking authority over the District of Columbia and the federal enclaves.
4 The 11th Amendment reduced the jurisdiction of federal courts by taking from them the power to hear cases filed by a citizen of one state against another state.
5 Federalist No. 80 (3rd & 13th paras) illustrates what "arising under the Constitution" means: Hamilton points to the restrictions on the power of the states listed at Art. I, §10 and shows that if a state exercises any of those powers, and the fed. gov't sues the state, the federal courts have authority to hear the case.
6 "Privileges and immunities" and "due process" are ancient principles of English jurisprudence well-known to earlier generations of American lawyers. "Equal protection" within §1 of the 14th Amd't means that with respect to the rights recognized by these ancient principles, states were now required to treat black people the same as white people. See Raoul Berger, Government by Judiciary The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
7 In Federalist No. 78 (6th para), Hamilton shows why federal courts have no power to enforce their orders and judgments – they must rely on the Executive Branch to enforce them:
Here, Eisenhower chose to enforce the Court's Order. But if he had decided that he would NOT enforce it, the schools would have remained segregated. Federal courts are dependent on the Executive Branch of the fed. gov't to enforce their Orders!This is what Hamilton is talking about in Federalist No. 78.
9 The President's Oath is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" (Art. II, §1, last clause). It is not to obey the Judicial Branch of the fed. gov't.
© Publius Huldah
Planned Parenthood’s New Job: Editing News Releases for State Officials
BY BEN MARQUIS
PUBLISHED MAY 27,
As several Democrat-led blue states worked to legislatively expand abortion rights, a number of Republican-led red states countered with legislation of their own that further restricted abortion, with Alabama passing into law one of the strictest measures in the nation that would ban virtually all abortions in the state.
In response to that, some of those Democrat-led states and municipalities have sought to express their displeasure with Alabama’s new law by imposing a sort of travel ban that would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds for any sort of official travel to Alabama. Colorado is one of those liberal-led states to do so.
However, as Colorado NBC-affiliate 9News first reported, the Colorado secretary of state’s office reached out to top-level officials at abortion providers Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, including vice president of communications Whitney Phillips and political director Jack Teter, for comment and guidance on a draft announcement of the boycott prior to the public release of that announcement.
Advertisement - story continues below
On May 16, just a couple hours before the travel ban was announced publicly by Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold, an email was sent from Griswold’s communications director, Serena Woods, to the Planned Parenthood officials that provided a draft copy of the announcement and asked for any edits or additional commentary that might be necessary.
Woods wrote, “Draft of what we are thinking attached. LMK thoughts/edits. If you could turn around as quickly as possible that would be great because SOS wants to move fast.”
Less than a half-hour later, Phillips replied via email, “Thanks Serena, I believe our CEO is going to call the Secretary and share some additional feedback. In the meantime, my feedback on the media release is attached. It feels to me the Election Center part is a little inside baseball for most folks and the travel authorization is a little more digestible for the mainstream/media.”
Attached to that email was a Word document that included the draft statement and some notes Phillips had added in the margin.
Advertisement - story continues below
One of the revisions sought to change the wording of the announcement’s sub-headline, the other suggesting striking another line in the release entirely, as it was viewed as unnecessary.
9News noted that the original sub-header read: “In Response to New Law in Alabama Limiting Women’s Civil Rights and Right to Choose, Secretary Griswold Calls for Boycott of Alabama and Takes Action at Department of State.”
Is it unethical for state officials to work hand-in-hand with Planned Parenthood?Yes No
But Phillips took issue with the “right to choose” language, and wrote, “We don’t recommend using right to choose/pro-life/pro-choice language anymore, all polling indicates it is further polarizing and turns folks off.”
The secretary of state’s office dutifully made the recommended changes, and the final version of the sub-headline dropped “right to choose” and added in “right to reproductive health care” instead. The line that Planned Parenthood suggested cutting was deleted.
When pressed for comment by 9News on what had occurred, Griswold confirmed what had happened and replied, in part, “I consulted with Planned Parenthood about this decision, as they are one of the largest providers of, and leading experts on, women’s health care.”
Advertisement - story continues below
9News also reached out to Phillips at Planned Parenthood, who said in a phone call, “In general, when any of our public officials reach out on input on women’s health issues, we provide opinion and general thoughts.”
Pressed about the appropriateness of Planned Parenthood having a say in official media releases for a state government office, Phillips replied via text:
“Yes of course. PP [Planned Parenthood] provides messaging guidance around abortion. That is our job as reproductive health experts.”
Except, it is a fairly safe bet that a majority of voters don’t consider making edits to official government media releases to be part of the job description of a Planned Parenthood official, nor do those voters expect elected officials to farm out their own duties — editing an official media release — to a biased lobbyist organization that most certainly has a dog in this particular fight.
Supreme Court Won’t Revive Alabama Ban on Dismemberment Abortions Tearing Off Babies’ Limbs
NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER
JUN 28, 2019 WASHINGTON, DC
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear another abortion case Friday out of Alabama in a devastating defeat for pro-life advocates and the unborn babies they hope to protect.
The Alabama law bans brutal dismemberment abortions that tear nearly fully formed babies limb from limb while their hearts are still beating. Alabama lawmakers enacted the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act in 2016, but two abortion businesses and the ACLU sued to stop it.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the law in 2018, and, on Friday, the high court refused to hear an appeal of that decision, according to Politico.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the strongest pro-life advocate on the high court, concurred with the decision, but he also argued that the justices should not keep refusing to hear abortion cases, according to ABC News.
“This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control,” he wrote in an opinion.
“… we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this court has wrought,” Thomas continued, noting that the Alabama law would ban the “dismemberment of a living child.”
The 11th Circuit, which ruled against the law in 2018, suggested it may have upheld the law if it was not bound by the U.S. Supreme Court precedent under Roe v. Wade.
As the AP reports:
Abortion providers had challenged the 2016 law in court and U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson found that it would amount to a virtual ban on abortion in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Thompson’s ruling blocking the law, but two of the three judges on the panel said they voted to affirm only because they are bound by past Supreme Court decisions in support of abortion rights.
Chief Judge Ed Carnes wrote that “dismemberment” is an accurate description for the procedure but ruled against the state. “In our judicial system, there is only one Supreme Court, and we are not it,” he wrote.
The decision whether to allow protections for unborn babies rests with the U.S. Supreme Court, and Justice Thomas, at least, wants to see the court revisit the issue. He issued a similarly strong opinion when the high court rejected an Indiana case in May. The case involved a law to protect unborn babies from discriminatory, eugenic abortions based on their sex, race or a disability.
Abortion activists noted that the Supreme Court will have plenty more chances to consider the issue in the months to come.
“While we are pleased to see the end of this particular case, we know that it is nowhere near the end of efforts to undermine access to abortion,” said ACLU attorney Andrew Beck in a statement. “Politicians are lining up to do just what Alabama did — ask the courts to review laws that push abortion out of reach and harm women’s health, with the hope of the getting the Supreme Court to undermine, or even overturn, a woman’s right to abortion.”
Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “win for abortion access.”
“Today, the Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling that blocked a harmful Alabama abortion restriction. This decision effectively protects Alabamians from this dangerous law and keeps it from taking effect — a WIN for abortion access!” the billion-dollar abortion group wrote on Twitter.
The Susan B. Anthony List criticized the high court for doing nothing while thousands of unborn babies are killed every day by the abortion industry.
“Unborn children and mothers will continue to be victimized by the abortion industry while the Court does nothing,” the pro-life group responded in a statement. “Justice Thomas is absolutely right when he says: ‘This case serves as a stark reminder that our abortion jurisprudence has spiraled out of control… we cannot continue blinking the reality of what this Court has wrought.’”
A dismemberment abortion is performed on a nearly fully-formed, living unborn baby in the second trimester. It is a barbaric and dangerous procedure in which the unborn baby is ripped apart in the womb and pulled out in pieces while his/her heart is still beating.
“Alabama children should be protected by law from being torn limb from limb,” said Bill Klein, president of Alabama Citizens For Life, previously. “No human should die this way in a civilized society. It shows a total disrespect for the sanctity of human life.”
Earlier this year, 21 states joined Alabama in urging the high court to uphold the law and end the violence against unborn babies.
The dismemberment abortion ban has the potential to save hundreds of unborn babies in Alabama. In 2014, there were 594 abortions that occurred in the second trimester or later, the Montgomery Advertiser reported previously.
The dismemberment law embodies model legislation from the National Right to Life Committee that would ban “dismemberment abortion,” using forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a living unborn baby to remove him or her from the womb in pieces.
Twelve states have passed dismemberment abortion bans to protect unborn babies, but most are being challenged in court.
A pro-choice vandal at Whatcom Community College was caught trying to steal pink crosses from the Students for Life Planned Parenthood Truth Tour in May, 2019. --
Students For Life of America - http://www.studentsforlife.org Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/studentsforlife Main YouTube - http://www.youtube.com/studentsforlife Main Twitter - https://twitter.com/StudentsforLife Instagram - http://www.instagram.com/studentsforlife
Students for Life of America (SFLA) is one of the nation's most active pro-life organizations and the largest youth pro-life organization. We are the only national pro-life organization dedicated to training and equipping college, high school, medical, and law school students. Our approach is uniquely effective, and the methods we have developed are a combination of time-tested
Senator Ben Sasse
Published on Jun 20, 2019
Senator Ben Sasse, the author of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, went to the Senate floor to condemn pro-abortion extremism that is well outside mainstream public opinion. Senator Sasse’s remarks come a week after Senator Kirsten Gillibrand compared pro-life beliefs to racism and two days before Planned Parenthood hosts an abortion roundtable for Democrats, including Senators Booker, Gillibrand, Harris, and Sanders.
Kamala Harris: Forcing Americans to Fund Abortions is “Exactly What I’ll Do as President”
NATIONAL MICAIAH BILGER JUN 26, 2019 | 11:06AM WASHINGTON, DC
Kamala Harris said she will “fight for women” by forcing Americans to pay for abortions if she is elected president of the United States.
In a column at the Concord Monitor last week, the California Democrat outlined her plan to push abortion on demand – “health care,” in her words – if she gains power in the White House.
“What we’re seeing across the country and in the White House makes it clearer than ever that we have to do more to protect women’s access to health care. That’s exactly what I will do when I’m president,” Harris said.
Among her goals is to end the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer-funded elective abortions in Medicaid. The amendment has had strong bipartisan support for years, and continues to have strong support from voters. Researchers estimate the amendment has saved about 2 million unborn babies from abortion, but the new Democratic Party platform calls for it to be repealed.
“I will … continue to fight so that all women have access to reproductive health care [abortion] regardless of how much money they make by continuing my career-long opposition to the Hyde Amendment,” Harris said.
I will fight back with a plan to block dangerous and deadly abortion restrictions before they take effect. Just as the Voting Rights Act required preclearance from the Department of Justice for any law that might infringe on people’s fundamental right to vote, my proposal will require, for the first time, that states and localities with a history of violating Roe v. Wade obtain approval from my Department of Justice before any abortion law or practice can take effect.
And I’m not going to stop there. I will also protect Planned Parenthood from Republican attempts to defund essential health services, nominate judges who respect Roe v. Wade and reverse the Trump administration’s illegal attempts to cut evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grants.
Harris argued that pro-life laws and policies treat women as lesser human beings. To achieve true equality with men, she believes women must have access to unrestricted abortions for any reason up to birth, as well as taxpayer-funded abortions.
“Last month in Nashua I said, ‘Let us all agree that women’s health care is under attack, and we will not stand for it,’” the California senator continued. “When I’m president, women … across the country will have someone fighting right alongside with them in the White House.”
But many women do not agree with Harris or the other Democratic presidential candidates’ radical pro-abortion agenda. Polls consistently show that the public does not.
In 2016, when Hillary Clinton campaigned on taxpayer-funded abortions, a Harvard University poll found that only 36 percent of likely voters supported her position.
A January poll by Marist University found similarly strong opposition, with 75 percent saying they oppose taxpayer-funded abortions and 19 percent saying they support it.
When it comes to abortion restrictions, Harris also is outside the mainstream. Gallup polls consistently have found that a majority of Americans think abortions should be heavily restricted or illegal.
In February, a Rasmussen poll found that just 21 percent of voters support New York’s new late-term abortion law, which allows abortions for basically any reason up to birth. A full 66 percent oppose the law, including 44 percent who identify as “pro-choice” on abortion. A national poll by Marist University in January found similar results.
Harris’s position on abortion does not represent most American women. Her position represents the billion dollar abortion industry, which has worked closely with her for yearsand donated tens of thousands of dollars to her political campaigns.
I’ve Had 2 Abortions. Here’s Why I Support Alabama’s Pro-Life Law.
Leslie Dean / May 19, 2019
"I promise you, at some point, the mother will realize that her child was killed, and it will overwhelm her," writes Leslie Dean.
Leslie Dean is a regional coordinator for the Silent No More's Awareness Campaign, which seeks to spread the truth about abortion.
I’m an unlikely person to be supporting Alabama’s new pro-life law. I was pro-choice for many years, and as a young woman I had not one, but two abortions.
Both of my abortions would have been illegal under Alabama’s new law passed last week. The law bans abortion at all stages and allows an exception only to save the life of the mother. Other states like Missouri and Louisiana aren’t far behind Alabama—and I applaud them all.
I’ve come a long way to get to this position. As I mentioned, I was once pro-choice. In 1972, I actually joined a high school walk-out march protesting the fact that Planned Parenthood wasn’t allowed to do a presentation at our school.
After graduating from nursing school, but before receiving my license, I was working in a hospital in Maryland. One evening, I was asked to assist a doctor with some procedures. I was not aware that this hospital did second trimester abortions until I arrived on the floor and was given my assignment.
The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more >>
There were three women there—all had been given saline injections into their uterus, and then placed on Pitocin drips to encourage contractions.
I spent the majority of time with one of the women, a 29-year-old who shared with me the circumstances behind her decision to abort. She had come home early from work the day before, and caught her husband on their living room couch having sex with another woman.
She said she left the house, and in her extreme hurt and anger decided the best way to get back at him was to tell him she had a miscarriage brought on from the shock of what she had witnessed. He would never know she had actually aborted their child.
Shortly after sharing this, her contractions became close enough that the doctor and I took her to the treatment room, where she began to push and eventually delivered a small baby boy a little larger than the size of my hand.
The doctor estimated him to be between 19-20 weeks. His body had been badly burned, and the expression on his face was unmistakably one of intense pain. He was still alive.
Other states like Missouri and Louisiana aren’t far behind Alabama—and I applaud them all.The doctor explained if the eyes were not “fixed” we may need to resuscitate. As he held up the baby to check the eyes, the mother saw him and began to scream uncontrollably: “Oh, God, what have I done?”
Declaring the eyes were fixed, he dropped the baby in a bucket on the floor where I saw it moving and gasping for breath, and then died. The mother became hysterical and had to be medicated.
I ended up going home sick. Eight months earlier, my husband and I had chosen abortion so I could finish nursing school, and the reality of that decision now weighed heavily on me.
That marriage ended, as is often the case in relationships involving abortion. I remarried, had a child, and when I soon became pregnant with a second, my husband claimed he wasn’t ready, and I aborted again.
This time, I fought for the baby, but went ahead with the abortion after he threatened to leave me. I believed the doctor when he told me the baby had no heartbeat or body form, and I went through with the procedure—though every fiber in me was unsure.
Two years later, now pregnant with a child we wanted, I had ultrasounds done regularly. I was shown a sonogram of my baby—at the same age as the two I aborted. It had arms, legs, a distinctive heartbeat (separate from my own), and most of all, was moving constantly as I watched.
The horror I felt when I realized I had been lied to—not once, but twice, and by different doctors—was overwhelming.
The regret was crushing. And the anger was immeasurable.
The horror I felt when I realized I had been lied to—not once, but twice, and by different doctors—was overwhelming.I found forgiveness when a dear friend introduced me to Jesus. I found healing in a post-abortive recovery group, and I found purpose in promising to keep other woman from being lied to and deceived as I had been.
I am now a nurse manager at a pregnancy center, and have been trained to do ultrasounds on the clients who come to us for help. Daily, I see the shock, and then the tears of women as they realize the child they were getting ready to abort is alive and moving within them—and has a beating heart!
One young 16-year-old told me, “The baby’s heartbeat is so much faster than mine! It has its own heartbeat, separate from me! So it’s not my body, it’s his! I would be getting rid of him!”
Pretty profound wisdom for a teenager.
This is why women need to know the truth. They deserve to make an informed decision about such a consequential thing. They deserve the facts—not pro-choice talking points that are riddled with lies and deceptions. They deserve the whole truth.
Daily, I see the shock, and then the tears of women as they realize the child they were getting ready to abort is alive and moving within them.The pain on the face of the baby I helped abort, and the pain of his mother as she realized what she’d done, should never have happened. It should never be something either of these human beings experienced.
The rhetoric on the other side says that post-abortion trauma doesn’t exist, that women don’t regret their abortions. I know that’s a lie. But what was worse for me was finding out the truth after the lie. The betrayal and regret almost destroyed me.
I commend the legislation being passed in states like Alabama, Missouri, and Georgia. These latter two states are advancing bills to ban abortion from when a heartbeat is detected. This means doctors will have to perform sonograms to see if the baby has a heartbeat, and then the mother will see her child.
That is a very compelling piece of information for a woman. She deserves that opportunity so she will know the truth. Her baby is alive, and all it needs to someday become a person—just like her—is time to grow.
I also believe the adoption option needs to be made more accessible and affordable. High schools should offer more education about this so that kids can know the truth about open adoption and the safety of intensive background checks.
The rhetoric on the other side says that post-abortion trauma doesn’t exist, that women don’t regret their abortions. I know that’s a lie.There are, of course, those who throw out the argument of rape: “Should a woman have to birth her child if she’s been raped?” To that I respond: Why should a woman suffer an act of violence twice? Abortion is an act of violence, too. And for an abortion to be successful, someone has to die.
I promise you, at some point, the mother will realize that her child was killed, and it will overwhelm her. She will want to know why she wasn’t told the truth.
Women need the truth. Women deserve the truth. That’s the true definition of caring for women’s health.