Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over

I have mail! (Sent via my NRO registration.)

Dear Friend,

For 39 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, while the national media has talked a lot about the impact of economic issues on this past election, the untold story is just how well pro-life candidates did.

So it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . 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 law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.

You see, it will be a tough fight, but I believe with your signed petition it is one we can win.

Please click here to sign your petition right away.

By turning up the heat through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign in this session of Congress, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will send another crew of radical abortionists down to defeat in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act.

The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

That’s why it’s so critical to work to get a vote on the Life at Conception Act, legislation that would reverse Roe v. Wade.

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade.

Your petition is the critical first step in fighting to end abortion.

Along with your signed petition, please consider making a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25. If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

14 thoughts on “Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over

      1. TwinSwords

        I believe if you remove the <pre> tags from the HTML, it will fix the odd formatting. (I’m hoping/expecting you won’t need to insert a bunch of <p> tags between paragraphs; I think WordPress’s editor will take care of that for you.)

        But, yeah: the ranting / raving letter from lunatic Rand Paul really shows how close the connection is between the supposedly sober, serious side of the GOP (NRO) and the deranged base.

        Reply
        1. MaxFlux Post author

          I used an indirect cut and paste, first from Gmail to Word, then from word to here as a blockquote, telling WP to retain the original formatting. This was the result. Had I more time I probably would have tried again. It’s a real challenge to use the native interface for anything for which you really want to control the formatting, apparently.

          Reply
          1. TwinSwords

            Yeah, moving content from other platforms into HTML has long been fraught with difficulty. In this case, the culprit was the <pre> tags. This tag was originally devised to allow rendering of non-HTML content in web browsers, and in a fixed with font at that, so as, for example, to facilitate display of content of tabular columns. This saved people the trouble of having to hand-convert their content to HTML, which was useful right around 1995-1996, before there were any good HTML editors. Nowadays, there’s very little need / use for the <pre> tag, at least relative to the earliest days of the web.

            I hope you don’t mind, but I edited the post to strip out the pre tags to make the post more readable. I saved a copy of the original source code and can restore it if you would like.

            Reply
            1. MaxFlux Post author

              Thanks Twin. This looks much better. I suck at HTML and web presentation in real life, and I’ve worked hard to keep it that way!

              Reply
              1. TwinSwords

                Heh. You’re not the first programmer I’ve known like that! I’ve been involved in managing web sites on my company’s intranet for a lot of years, and one recurring conundrum is the highly talented programmer who builds an amazing web application but who doesn’t know — and doesn’t want to know — much about HTML or CSS. The result is often amazingly cool applications with incredibly bad user interfaces. The problem this often presents is that “designer” types who can create nice looking interfaces are often afraid to touch these web applications to make them look good because they’re worried they’ll break the underlying application code…

                Reply
  1. MaxFlux Post author

    The language here speaks for itself. That supposedly responsible entities like NRO (I know! I know: Jonah Goldberg, K-Lo, Krikorian, ad infinitum… Who am I kidding?) are willing to put their name onto something as ugly as this tells us a lot about the current state of the GOP.

    Reply
  2. Steph

    Two points about this. First, as discussed in the gay marriage thread, abortion is within the realm of issues normally given to the states. When pro-life advocates who also consider themselves on the right and proponents of “federalism” — the same people who have decided that Congress grossly overstepped the Interstate Commerice Clause in passing ACA — decide they are going to try to deal with abortion through Congress, they are being hypocrites. No, more significantly, they are proving their their claim to care about Congress overstepping its Constitutional or traditional authority is a lie. Their only interest is in achieving victory on their policy agenda, whether that be outlawing abortion or opposing health care reform and the extention of health care to those who cannot otherwise obtain it. (Pro-life advocates who aren’t also bound to states’ rights arguments aren’t the target here, but that most certainly does not include NRO, which has been major offender.)

    Second, the legal argument, that abortion can be resolved by a federal statute that declares that humans are “persons” from the moment of conception, that that gets around Roe and Casey, is ridiculous and no reputable legal scholarship supports it. I imagine those who sent the letter know it too, and certainly the NRO types do, even the dumbest ones. Thus, it’s fundraising under a false premise. Not that this is new.

    For the record, a certain rather stupid person who fancied himself knowledgeable about the law over at bloggingheads asserted this particular argument over there. It really makes no sense. It is undisputed that a state taking a position on the definition of “person” is not enough to create a compelling state interest, given the lack of consensus on the question. That’s the essence of Roe and has subsequently been decided by the courts when presented more directly multiple times. But the argument here is that if Congress just did, that would be enough.

    A reverse of this question was actually a moot court topic that I argued (both sides) when I was in law school. The hypothetical was that Roe and Casey get overturned, but Congress passes a Choice Act making abortion legal. Does that preempt state laws banning abortion, or instead is the Act without Congressional authority?

    Reply
    1. TwinSwords

      When pro-life advocates who also consider themselves on the right and proponents of “federalism” … decide they are going to try to deal with abortion through Congress, they are being hypocrites.

      Yeah. I think this shows that a lot of people just reach for whatever argument is handy, whatever they think will work in the next debate with their brother-in-law, or whomever. They don’t really care about or understand the underlying philosophical foundations of their arguments.

      It seems related that a lot of people just believe instinctively that whatever they think is Good and Right should also be understood to be Constitutional, whether it actually is, or not. It seems to me that people shouldn’t feel compelled to argue that their ideas are already Constitutional; they should just argue that they *should* be Constitutional if they aren’t already. (Or, unconstitutional, as the case may be.)

      So, here’s a question for you (sincerely; I don’t know the law well enough to know the answer to this): Was it Constitutional in 1800 to own blacks? Was it Constitutional, back then, to deny women the right to vote?

      Or were both of those things perfectly legal / Constitutional given the law as it was written at the time?

      If they *were,* it kind of reinforces the point that Constitutional doesn’t automatically mean “good,” which I don’t think many people appreciate.

      This has been another edition of Constitutional Law for Simpletons. ;-)

      Reply
      1. Steph

        As you probably suspect, that’s not such a simple question. I’d say it depends on whether you mean constitutional under the Constitution as currently interpreted or constitutional under the Constitution as then interpreted.

        I recently had a conversation at bh about tradition, and the whole “original intent” think is basically anti-conservative, anti-tradition, and anti-the common law system, as all of those things allow for the development of law over time. Thus, the development means, I think, that even without the amendments there’s a clear argument for the extention of law to include equal protection of the law to women and the abolishment of slavery — despite the fact that the Constitution itself clearly recognizes the existence of slavery, and also that the franchise be limited.

        But that all assumes the development of law in a way that it likely would not have developed without the 14th amendment (among other things). So the easy answer is that the Constitution at the time, whether one looks as the intent of the drafters or simply the language itself, as interpreted, most certainly allowed for slavery and denying women the right to vote.

        Scalia would (apparently) take that to extremes and point out that even at the time of the passage of the 14th amendment it didn’t include women, such that it did not automatically make denying the franchise to women unconstitutional. That’s why we had to amend the Constitution for that and why later people wanted the ERA. However, the interpretation of the document has evolved such as that I think denying the franchise to women would be clearly unconstitutional now even without the 19th amendment and the ERA adds nothing to what’s already there.

        Reply
        1. TwinSwords

          Thanks for the details — quite interesting.

          The whole concept of a limited franchise just seems completely antithetical to everything we believe in as a nation, but clearly this was part of the plan from the start, and for a significant part of the conservative movement, remains part of the plan. (And, sadly, I’m afraid it’s not *only* conservatives. When Will Wilkenson did a diavlog years ago about limiting the franchise to an elite who can be trusted to govern the nation (as if!), there was some liberal agreement with him in the forum.

          Reply
          1. Ocean

            Ay! This is a problematic topic, at least for me, in part perhaps, due to my ignorance about forms of government. My understanding is that under a representative form of government, in a way, an elite is elected so that they can make decisions that roughly reflect the will of the majority. However, there are forms of representation that may include policies that seem to depart from the will of the people and they’re still necessary for some good reason. For example it may well be that if you ask individual citizens they may want to have their taxes decreased. That doesn’t mean that’s the best course of action considering the national economic state. The elected representatives may increase taxes instead.

            There is also the problem of the extremely uninformed and easily manipulated voters. But I don’t think there are too many ways around that since you can’t restrict voting to a selected few. Perhaps making sure that people vote responsibly by getting educated on their civic duties.

            If Will Wilkinson was talking about something even more restrictive of our common understanding of democracy, then I don’t know what you’re referring to.

            Reply
            1. Steph

              I expect Wilkinson was talking about some kind of voter test or perhaps the idea that only property owners should voter (which the Tea Party was stupidly blathering about in ’09 or so).

              I’d have to hear Wilkinson on it to be convinced that he was more than merely bemoaning the stupidity of the voters or, perhaps, defending voter id laws or the like.

              Reply

Leave a Reply

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

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>