Yesterday, January 22, saw a veritable army of pro-lifers participate in the 35th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This demonstration of public sentiment was first held in 1974 to mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. In that decision, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Since then, an estimated 50,000,000 babies have been killed in the womb in the United States.

As we observed yesterday, ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

This writer and his wife have been active in the pro-life movement for decades. Between us, we have participated in life rallies, life marches, life chains, and prayer outside abortion mills in states as widespread as Massachusetts, California, Texas, Wisconsin, and Florida. This year, we donated money to help send a group of 60 students from Ave Maria University in Florida to the March for Life in Washington. Needless to say, we have great admiration for the many thousands of people who marched down Constitution Avenue yesterday, and for Nellie Gray, who has organized this event from its inception. However, at yesterday’s rally, Gray told those gathered that the battle for life had to be won at the federal level, that it was not enough to send the issue back to the states, where abortion could be legal in one state and illegal in the next.

Of course, that strategy overlooks the fact that abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade that interjected the federal government into the abortion issue in the first place and at the same time made abortion on demand legal throughout the United  States. Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?

Transferring powers from the states to the federal government does not automatically mean that the laws would be better or that they would be applied as originally intended. (Such transfers of power can be a very dangerous thing and can have unintended consequences, since they result in a consolidation of power as well as more distance between the governed and government.) This is true even when the intent behind giving more power to the federal government is to end injustice, as was the case with the language in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that was intended to extend civil rights to freed slaves after the Civil War. Despite the intent, it was this same 14th Amendment that eventually provided the Supreme Court with its convoluted justification for writing Roe v. Wade. The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provided: “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.” (Emphasis added.)

Prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment, it was the responsibility of each state to provide its citizens with equal protection of the laws. However, a series of court rulings eventually culminated in using the 14th Amendment as a pretext to make the states’ business the federal government’s business. Following this precedent, the Supreme Court that wrote Roe v. Wade first completely ignored the literal meaning of the 14th Amendment, which, (quite ironically) states that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (Emphasis added.) The court then reaffirmed a right to privacy unknown to the authors of the Constitution and found only in the “penumbra” of the Constitution (which had been cited in previous “privacy” decisions, most notably, in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965) and — following the precedent of previous courts — included the “right” to abortion in this newly invented right.

It is a case of reaping what we sow. By transferring the authority to oversee equal protection of the laws from the states to the federal government (particularly the federal courts), we have inadvertently also given the federal courts the converse power to abolish those rights! In this case, the most fundamental right of all — the right to life!

Fortunately, there exists a simpler, more practical strategy to protect life (and other things we cherish), provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This section allows Congress to strip the Supreme Court of any cases (e.g., abortion cases) where the Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiciton. Congress can also limit the jurisdication of any lower federal courts, since Congress created those courts. Congress could make Roe v. Wade  a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws.

This remedy has already been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the new (111th) Congress as H.R. 539, the “We the People Act.” H.R. 539 would remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts from cases related to the free exercise or establishment of religion; the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction (e.g., abortion); the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation (same-sex marriage).

The legislation would also prohibit the federal courts from relying on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in the above list. In other words, it would remove Roe v. Wade and similar decisions from judicial precedent.

In 2003, Rep. Paul (an obstetrician who has delivered over 4,000 children) wrote an essay entitled “Pro-Life Action Must Originate from Principle.” We encourage you to follow the link and read the entire essay, but here are a few of its key points:

• "Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade.  Because of this, attempts were made to fight against abortion using political convenience rather than principle."

• "When we surrender constitutional principles, we do untold damage to the moral underpinnings on which our Constitution and entire system of government rest. Those underpinnings are the inalienable right to life, liberty, and property."

• "Pro-lifers should be fiercely loyal to this system of federalism, because the very same Constitution that created the federal system also asserts the inalienable right to life."

• "Pro-life forces have worked for the passage of bills that disregard the federal system…. Each of these bills rested on specious constitutional grounds and undermined the federalism our Founders recognized and intended as the greatest protection of our most precious rights."

• "Each of these bills transfers to the federal government powers constitutionally retained by the states, thus upsetting the separation and balance of powers that federalism was designed to guarantee. To undermine federalism is to indirectly surrender the very principle upon which the protection of our inalienable right to life depends."

Following the March for Life, marches were encouraged to visit their congressional representatives to lobby for the right to life. As to how many of these marchers knew about H.R. 539, or encouraged their representative to cosponsor it, we have no way of knowing. But we suspect most missed the boat on what may be the only way to reverse the scourge of Roe v. Wade in most of our lifetimes.

However, each marcher (and each supporter who watched from home) still has the opportunity to contact his representative by e-mail, phone, fax, or an old-fashioned letter.

The fight for life must continue!
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Matt said:

	Ron Paul = Liberty This man is one to watch, if he decides not to run again look to whom ever he endorses. There is a big grass roots fallowing growing by leaps and bounds from all sides of the isle. He is the defender of the constitution and a real chance for change in this country. He is a huge step back toward our founders vision for this great country we love. See www.campaignforliberty.com
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 23, 2009
Votes: +11

Darryl Schmitz said:

	... Couldn't have been said any better, Matt.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 23, 2009
Votes: +6

tajitj said:

	... Dr. Paul was promoting the March for Life on his website. There are members of his CampaignforLiberty that are very active. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=8994
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 24, 2009
Votes: +4

Cari Burnett said:

... I'll just bet that none of the people responding to this propaganda have never been raped and faced with an unwanted pregnancy. And all u "right to lifers" will say it's not the unborn childs fault and this is true but try and explain that to a 14 year old girl who lost her innocence to a brutal animal and then had to suffer the indignity of bringing his spawn into the world. Put your efforts into helping the people already in the world and into keeping animals who abuse women and children behind bars and stay out of the private lives of Americans -yes FREE AMERICANS - who happen not to share your beliefs!!!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2009
Votes: -4

ephil said:

Non-issue! Cari, all of your 'theoretical' situations could be debated and decided at a State level. In fact, I would venture a guess that a local decision would tend to be more compassionate as local people would have time for such decisions. This isn't a one-size-fits-all issue. In addition, although everyone holds up the dirt-poor individual, if a neighboring State had more amenable laws, people would go there. I've been in too many of these poor, on assistance homes and been astounded by the plethora of expensive toys, clothes and flat screen/plasma tvs to seriously believe that such a girl couldn't figure out how to buy a bus ticket if she wanted too and her State refused to allow her to have the procedure despite her obviously desperate circumstances.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2009
Votes: +3

Cari Burnett said:

... This was no theoretical issue this was MY CHILD. and how dare you assume to know better than I what was right. Where was God when that animal raped my child. We believed and no one cared. Where were the offers of help and counsel?? Don't tell me until you've lived the horror of your child being raped. I hope you never feel my pain of helplessness and your child never knows the torture my child knows

report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2009
Votes: +0

Cari Burnett said:

	... And I am not on any assistance!! Of any kind. I'm a hard working teacher raising 2 beautiful children alone as their father passed away from cancer during my pregnancy. I own neither expensive toys for my children nor do I own a plasma TV. YOU ARE A STEREOTYPE. Tell me do you have your own ideas or do you only espouse the propaganda of meaningless websites?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 25, 2009
Votes: +0

Pro-life mom said:

	Cari I'm sorry to hear of your daughters circumstance and the difficult decision you made to abort the child due to her rape....however I recommend you read this ]tru.../uu3w/url] and see it if you can...http://adjix.com/uu3w you can preview the movie here http://22weeksthemove.com
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2009
Votes: +2

Pro-life mom said:

	Cari update Sorry here's the link to the article I wanted to recommend for you...http://adjix.com/uu3w and http://22weeksthemovie.com had typo in previous link
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2009
Votes: +1

ephil said:

... I'm sorry that you have had to make this difficult decision with your child. It must have been a horrifying experience. Perhaps for your situation, it was the right decision. But, does her case mean that aborting a baby 'for convenience' is right for everyone? All State laws would do is allow for finer distinctions to be made--and probably exceptions as well. And if, supposing that your State absolutely refused to allow this, would you not have, being convinced that it was not only right but the only solution, drive a few hours to another State that viewed things differently? What I find offensive is the women that use abortion instead of birth control. People that want to just skip the consequences of their actions. Typically the argument I've read against States being allowed to legislate this, refers to those 'poor disadvantaged' women that would be just stuck and at the mercy of those cold-hearted legislators. This is not my stereotype. I have been a section 8 landlord for several years though and I have frequently wondered how they could afford the overabundance of expensive stuff that was way beyond our budget--but then we had to work hard for our money and didn't spend it lightly, so sometimes reality isn't what you expect.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2009
Votes: +2

Cari Burnett said:

... Free country means free! Why should I have to travel with my child perhaps hours to another state and make her feel more ashamed?? Why should the views of certain people which are based on religion, govern the laws of each states?? America is a land where people are free to believe or not believe at their will! Where do the boundaries lie? Your views are not the views of all; your beliefs not the beliefs of all. If we allow the government to make personal decisions for us, does it not open the door to the loss of freedom?? I should NOT have to travel any distance to receive proper medical care just because people don't agree with my decision! As for your disdainful comment on birth control or convienence abortion.... Moral judgement is best left to your God! If God truly exists, shall these people not receive just punishment in the afterlife? I was told all my life how we should rejoice the souls who pass away for they are in the kingdom of the Lord and this is where the souls of FETUSES-NOT BABIES- are if you really are a believer.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 26, 2009
Votes: -1