AN ACT: SEPARATING THE TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY THROUGH ABORTION, FROM THE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF A LIFE THROUGH ABORTION.

It shall be federal law, and added to the U.S. Code, that the act of an abortion be split into two separate actions, and recognized as two separate actions under law. That the connection between the termination of a pregnancy and the termination of the life of the baby, be severed. That a new definition of abortion be secured in law where abortion shall be defined ONLY as the termination of a pregnancy, and not include, which has been the case up until this time, the automatic requirement, custom, and practice, that the life of the baby be terminated as a necessity of the termination of the pregnancy. Given the current state of medical technology, science, and ability, to save babies at almost every stage of development; given that open heart surgery can be done in the womb, and other miracles can be performed almost routinely, and that medical science is growing in ability every day; there is no longer any medical necessity, or even reason, to terminate the life of a child, when the decision has been made to terminate the pregnancy.

The only reason this barbaric practice continues of killing the baby automatically as an integral part of an abortion during this age of medical miracles is that’s how it’s always been. That is the worst possible kind of justification, it is cold, and cruel, and has no place anymore in law and in practice. This proposed law before you now, by separating the act of abortion into ONLY the termination of the pregnancy, but NOT the termination of the life of the baby, shall now treat the baby as a person, as a human being, with all unalienable, natural, and constitutional rights of all persons, under law, such that the act of killing a baby during the termination of a pregnancy, shall be considered murder, as all other such willful deaths of a person are considered murder, and shall not be allowed any further, under federal law, regardless of at what point in the pregnancy the decision is made to have an abortion, or from when it is carried out.

Since the only relevant law concerning abortion, both federal and state, all centers around the Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade, this background and introduction shall be written like a judicial opinion as well. Abortion laws before Roe v Wade tend to originate in the mid-1800’s, a time at which women were second class citizens. They could not vote, they were not equal to men in any area of commerce, rights or family, and could not control their own bodies and choices. This was wrong. However, so is Roe v Wade. Even though Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional decision which wildly exceeds the Supreme Court’s authority, and results from a usurpation of both Congresses 100% legislative role in the Federal Government, and a power known as Judicial Review which was specifically NOT delegated to any part of the Federal Judiciary, and because the vast majority of the federal and state governments, and the vast majority of the American people, mistakenly believe that the Supreme Court, and the rest of the Judiciary, have this unconstitutional power, the Roe v Wade decision has been mistakenly and tragically elevated to the status it has as national policy, which, because it is also a Supreme Court opinion, can not be challenged by Congress, by the Executive, by the States or local government entities, in court, by juries of the people, in regulation, or in legislation. It is within this horrendously erroneous and egregious legal condition and national belief system that our proposed law here, separating the act of abortion into two parts, one being the ending of a pregnancy and the other being the act of saving a baby’s life, is being created.

Every court and legal challenge to Roe v Wade has made the same error, that of continued linking as one automatic action, the termination of both a pregnancy and the life of the child. Therefore, all such cases and laws had to challenge Roe on things like when life begins, or on when a heartbeat begins, or on a variety of other challenges that never touched the foundation of Roe v Wade that it is a woman’s right to choose an abortion as part of a right of privacy, as an unwritten part of the Due Process clause of the Constitution. The sad tragedy is that no such right exists, because no one has the right to choose the ending of the life of another, and there is nothing “private” about an abortion, especially to the child who is lost. This continued condition as a result of Roe v Wade has resulted in the popular chant amongst supporters to be, “My body, my choice.” This has resulted in the country being divided into two factions: “pro-choice,” and “pro-life,” and the dividing point being where abortion which automatically kills the baby as part of the process is the “pro-choice” position, and where abortion should be completely illegal forcing birth regardless of any other conditions as the “pro-life” position. Whereas the “pro-choice” position can and almost always does result, every time, in the death of the child at the “choice” of the mother, the “pro-life” position puts the government in a position of superiority over individual rights, and making decisions over the lives of individuals that no constitutional review can tolerate. Although the intent of the “pro-life” position is to preserve life, which is right and just, in the process it destroys individual rights, which can and will be used as a precedent to destroy other individual rights by an ever more controlling government. The challenge therefore is to find a way through both positions. We believe this law does just that.

 

In truth, the “pro-choice” title is a misnomer. Pro-Choice is in reality Pro-Choice x 3. Here is the argument.

Pro-choice x1 — this is the woman who has all the choice over herself. Her body; we understand and accept that. And if that were the full extent of the reproduction issue, we probably wouldn’t have an issue. But it is more complicated than that.

Which brings us to Pro-choice x 2 — This is where the woman once pregnant has full choice over the man whether he becomes a father when he would choose for himself not to, or to not be a father when he would choose to. She also has the choice of 18 years of child support from the man, who may never even have the child in his life, or never wanted a child in the first place, if given the choice. So now the woman is pro-choice over the man’s fatherhood, and choice over his finances, where the man has no choice over either. This is both wrong, and a violation of the Equal Protection, Due Process and Privileges and Immunities clauses of the Constitution. Along with this is the provision that no man can demand a woman have an abortion, because again, no one can force choice upon another person. The only individual rights anyone has, is over themselves as individuals, nothing more. How can it be that women can have both an individual right to privacy under the Constitution, AND a right of absolute control over men, who have no such privacy right? The answer is, they can’t. How can anyone have a right of “privacy,” which is solely about keeping things secret to yourself and especially from government, over someone else’s life decisions and responsibilities? Any government sanctioned power, which someone exercises over someone else, makes it a public action and a suppression of rights, not a private right, which therefore voids the entire legal theory underlying Roe v Wade.

And that brings us to Pro-choice x 3 — the baby. Whether you view it as a fertilized egg and then a clump of cells, the liberal view, or human life upon conception, the conservative view, the fact is that you have a potential human, or already human, already. If not human life, with all the genetic material for independent human life at conception, then what? We can’t answer that question for everyone. But, the woman, who has choice over herself, x 1, and over the man, x 2, also has a life and death choice over the fertilized egg / human baby, which is pro-choice x 3. So if you are pro-choice, you are saying that you are pro-choice with the power over yourself, whether a man will be a father or not, whether a man has control of 18 years of support or not, and whether a baby will be born and grow potentially to adulthood, or be aborted and killed. The question now is whether any one person, a prospective mother, should have all the choices, and therefore all the power, of money, of parenthood, of life and death, for all the people involved, and still call this a right of privacy? Pro-choice x 3. We find this position that pro-choice puts all the power of three lives in the mother, and by association her doctor, to be indefensible.

 

We now change with this law the way abortion is carried out, by changing the definition of abortion. By splitting the definition and current practice of abortion into two separate acts under law, it makes irrelevant all the previous legal challenges, the unconstitutionality of Roe v Wade, the mistaken belief system in the power of the Judiciary, the mistaken belief system of the Judiciary themselves in their own power, the question of when life begins, the question of the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, and a myriad of other questions, legal theories, arguments, passions, protests, challenges, and everything else that has made up the national story of abortion since Roe v Wade. This simple change in the definition of abortion, to apply only to the termination of a pregnancy, maintains the right to choose to end the pregnancy, and only the pregnancy, which is purely in the province of the mother. It also negates any need to define when life begins, because the fact that there is a life independent of the mother that was saved when the pregnancy was terminated, which grants all the rights of humanity at that instant to the baby, and as such, can not be killed after an abortion, or as any part of an abortion, because the baby has exactly the same right of Privacy, Due Process, Equal Protection, Privileges and Immunities, of the mother, the father, and every other citizen of the United States, makes the question of when life begins irrelevant because a life already exists.

 

We therefore submit this bill for the consideration of the Congress of the United States.

AN ACT: SEPARATING THE TERMINATION OF A PREGNANCY THROUGH ABORTION, FROM THE AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF A LIFE THROUGH ABORTION.

1: “Abortion” shall be defined in law as the termination of a pregnancy only. That upon the decision to, and proceeding of, an abortion, by the mother, that the life of the baby is now completely separate from the mother, is independent, is a person in his or her own right, and is endowed with all the rights of personhood, and of a human being.

2: The decision to terminate a pregnancy, by abortion, with the intent of killing the baby as the usual extension of the abortion, shall constitute an irrevocable declaration by the mother relinquishing all parental rights, responsibilities, authority and obligations to and over the child, at which time, all such parental rights, responsibilities, authority and obligations to and over the child, shall be immediately transferred to the father. This opens to the father rights of full parenthood, as well as every right and choice the mother had including giving up the child for adoption. The father shall then have the full complement of all programs, subsidies and benefits the government provides to single mothers and shall not be discriminated against because of his gender.

3. The child shall be determined, in law, to be an independent human being, the instant a mother decides to terminate the pregnancy with the desire and intent of terminating the life of the child. This law is specifically designed to prevent that outcome by separating the termination of a pregnancy, with the termination of the life of the baby, because at the point such an abortion is chosen, the baby is determined to be separated from the mother, and endowed by all the rights of birth accorded any other human being.

4: The “Birthday” of any child resulting from a terminated pregnancy shall be the day, hour, minute, and second, recorded by law, at which instant, the child is separated from the mother, and living on his or her own, no longer dependent on the mother for his or her life.

5: Nothing in this law shall cover, effect, or be initiated when the desire of the mother is to save the baby, but still requires that the pregnancy be terminated for any number of reasons. This law is specifically designed to eliminate the death of a child as an integral, required, necessary, and customary part of the abortion, by changing the legal definition of abortion and separating it into two events, something that has been, and is, automatically implemented as if they were one event.

6: This law shall not cover smoking while pregnant, drinking while pregnant, taking drugs while pregnant, or any other behavior or practice which can harm the developing baby, as those factors are already covered by other laws.

7. As lives are lost every day to abortions, because the act of killing the baby is automatically linked in practice and by Roe v Wade, this law shall be considered an emergency law, with consideration by Congress at the earliest possible opportunity.

8. Nothing in this act will be enforced against efforts to save the life of a baby which fail, given every possible effort and medical competence currently available and implemented when a pregnancy is terminated.

Please follow and like us:

2 comments

  1. Karen Hoffman says:

    The Federal Govt already subsidizes Planned Parenthood. The money is not supposed to go toward abortion. Allocating that money toward life would be ideal. Also, many of the mothers and/or fathers have health insurance. It should cover medical care of a newborn. If not, medicaid?

  2. Wendy Arthur says:

    EXCELLENT points in your bill, Greg! What would have to be determined is at what point in pregnancy is the baby viable outside the womb. Before medical science and technology progressed over the past decade, 26 weeks was the minimum gestation required for a baby to survive due to lung development. At what stage of development would it be safe to terminate the pregnancy with technology advancing at it is now? Technology may be advancing rapidly but babies have developed at the same rate since the beginning of time.

    A couple issues would have to be addressed:
    1. Who is responsible for the ICU medical care necessary for the baby until the father (or adoptive family) takes the baby home? (Mother, father, our taxes?)

    2. The whole purpose of abortion is to wipe out any personal responsibility for one’s actions. Under your bill, terminating a pregnancy requires accountability for creating a human life – as it should be. Anytime two people have unprotected sex they are saying yes to parenthood! The biggest backlash you will find from opponents to this legislation is the reality of taking responsibility for creating another human being. Be prepared.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *