“Our babies are being slaughtered,” lamented Senator Kamala Harris (shown, D-Calif.) to MSNBC on Thursday, in response to the February 14 shooting in Florida that left 17 students and staff members dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas school.
Harris stated that what she was saying was “harsh,” but added that “as a prosecutor for years, and appreciating homicide, and being able to talk with a judge about it and a jury about it, I had to look at autopsy photographs. When you see the effect of this extreme violence on a human body, and especially the body of a child, maybe it will shock some people into understanding.”
One wonders, has Senator Harris has ever looked at photographs of unborn babies after they have been torn apart by an abortionist? Yet, she calls middle- and high-school students “babies,” in an obvious effort to win laws gutting the Second Amendment.
“This cannot be a political issue," she declared. "We have to be practical. I support the Second Amendment, but we have to have smart gun safety laws. And we cannot tolerate a society and live in a country with any level of pride when our babies are being slaughtered.”
Exactly what Harris would consider a “smart” gun-safety law, which would also follow the Second Amendment, is not quite clear. But what is really interesting about her remarks is not so much her alleged concern about “babies being slaughtered” with guns versus her lack of concern over babies being slaughtered in the womb, but her actual advocacy of legalized abortion.
According to an article in The Daily Wire, Harris is apparently viewed by pro-abortion advocacy groups as a strong supporter of babies being slaughtered in the womb via abortion. In the 2016 election cycle, NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Harris $10,000, while Planned Parenthood handed her $2,600, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Another pro-abortion group, EMILY’s List, gave her $21,570. “In total,” The Daily Wire reported, she received $43,155 from abortion policy/pro-abortion rights groups and individuals during that election cycle.
Harris' concern for those who died in the tragic Florida school shooting is commendable. However, her solution — to abridge the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of millions of Americans who had nothing to do with it — is not.
And her outright advocacy of the right to kill — or in her own words, “slaughter” — unborn babies, is detestable.
Do these unborn children not have as much right to live as any other person living in America? If one reads the U.S. Constitution, it would certainly seem so.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in the aftermath of the Civil War, primarily to protect the civil rights of the millions of former slaves. In Section 1, it states that no state can “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.”
One does not have to accept the validity of the “Incorporation Doctrine” (which I do not) to make the intended application of these two provisions. It was not, as the proponents of the Incorporation Doctrine maintain, a transfer of power from the states to the federal government’s judiciary to impose same-sex marriage or to impose abortion, regardless of a state’s laws. On the contrary, the first provision, requiring each state to give all persons “within its jurisdiction” due process of law, meant that whatever the legal processes were in place in a state, they had to be applied to all persons equally, before any person could be deprived of life, liberty, or property.
Allowing an unborn baby to be torn to pieces via abortion, without being found guilty of any crime, would certainly seem to be a denial of due process. Even an accused murderer, rapist, or bank robber is allowed due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. But in the America of Kamala Harris, that does not include babies in the womb.
The second part of the 14th Amendment, that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws,” is likewise clear. It does not say that all persons are to be treated “equally,” which would be absurd. No one thinks that a six-year-old should be able to drive a 3,000-pound automobile on the public highways, just because a 30-year-old can. This means simply that whatever statutes are enacted to protect one citizen, that same protection must apply to all other citizens. In other words, homicide statutes that protect a grown man must also protect an unborn baby girl.
Yet our federal courts have turned this provision on its head. Instead of saying that laws should protect unborn babies like any other resident of a state, the infamous Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 decreed that states cannot protect some of their citizens (unborn babies) from homicide.
While it is a praiseworthy goal to get better judges on the Supreme Court, and hope that they someday reverse that 1973 decision (it would be good for other cases, too), states could take this action today by simply passing a law that states that they are complying with the 14th Amendment’s requirement that their homicide statutes, whatever they are, apply to all persons, from conception to natural death.
As a companion measure, Congress could then pass a law removing federal court jurisdiction from such actions, by Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, something long advocated by former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas).
These two actions would end legalized abortion in America, and fulfill the stated goal of Kamala Harris of stopping the slaughter of babies.
Photo: AP Images