Your prayers are needed

Peaceable protection of the unborn by Georgia State Rep. Martin Scott (From an article which appeared in the @issue section of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Thursday Feb. 7, 2008)

Human Life Amendment defends

The inalienable right to existence

When the founding Father wrote the Declaration of Independence more than 200 years ago, they clearly spelled out that all persons have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and that these inalienable rights come from our “creator.”

They would be shocked to see how a series of rogue Supreme Court justices trampled the Constitution and divided our nation over one word: life.

A bipartisan coalition of the Georgia General Assembly adopted several lifesaving laws for unborn babies during the past three years, and now, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, is the time to clearly define who has the right to life.

Article 1 of the Georgia Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property. …”    The proposed Human Life Amendment to the Georgia Constitution (H.R. 536) declares the dignity of human life from the moment of fertilization throughout all phases of life, without regard to age or race.

In an era where human life has become cheapened and people seem to be more concerned about mistreatment of animals than humans, it is time to evaluate our core principles. It is time to take a stand and defend innocent human life.

Throughout the world we are seeing challenges to the dignity of human life, and it’s not just the brutal, gruesome, secret surgical procedure of abortion. We live in an age where biotechnical advancements outpace the political will for ethical restraint.

Oregon has legalized suicide. Cloning, genetic engineering and trans-humanism are turning fictional Franken-science into reality. Margaret Sanger’s eugenics philosophy runs rampant as Planned Parenthood annually snuffs out the lives of millions of future artists, entrepreneurs, scientists, doctors, nurses, teachers and even lawyers.

Georgia must protect the human rights of unborn babies, elderly retirees and disabled children and adults, as well as sick patients who simply need a caring heart and helping hand.

The Human life Amendment, in and of itself, does not specifically criminalize any act. Its enactment would not automatically overturn Roe v. Wade. It would, however, proclaim the dignity of all human beings within the confines of our state constitution.

The amendment could provide a platform for future legislative, executive or judicial action on behalf of innocent persons.

Since 1980, the Republican Party platform has called for a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It comes as no surprise that Washington politicians could not get it done.

The year 2007 marked the 200-year anniversary of the beginning of the end of slavery in Great Britain. Perhaps our young nation could have used a diplomatic, yet uncompromising, voice akin to that of the British slavery opponent and member of Parliament William Wilberforce, but Providence granted us Webster, Clay and Calhoun.

The antebellum triumvirate kept us out of war for a time with continuous compromise and regulation of slavery, but both sides largely avoided the obvious question: the personhood of the African.

Our nation struggled for nearly 100 years over the matter of the personhood of the African-American slave before our most tragic war. Today, after 35 years of Roe, and nearly 50 million unborn American lives lost, we should take our lesson from history. We should glean from the example of peaceful Wilberforce.

We must provide constitutional protection for all persons, including unborn children.

The bipartisan, pro-life coalition in the Georgia House is making history by pursuing a Human Life Amendment to the state constitution, progressing out of the abortion-regulating strategy of the past. It has almost 50 sponsors. Now other states are following our strategy.

And while the amendment begins in the legislature, ultimately the people of Georgia will decide via referendum whether to acknowledge the personhood of all human beings.

Georgia House Rep. James Mills (R-Gainesville) says, “All babies have a right to a birthday.” And no matter what Planned Parenthood, the ACLU or other lift-wing outfits may claim, this amendment is not about restricting family planning.

This is a peaceful and positive movement to restore respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans, starting right here in Georgia.

·         State Rep. Martin Scott is a Republican from Rossville, Georgia.

Here is one response to the article which was in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page.

Let's make it a better village

Being pragmatic, I view abortion much as I do public transportation: doesn't work for me, don’t recommend it to my loved ones, but I am more than happy to help subsidize it for those who need it. And in both cases, research has proven our world is better off with it than without it.

If legal and social policy is to change, I’ll vote to make abortions free, extend that period to at least as long after birth as it is now after conception, and make it mandatory in some cases. After all, it does take a village, and if government must get involved, let’s make it a better village.

This comment was made by a man  from Dunwoody, Georgia (I didn’t have the heart to embarrass him any further by including his name) 

And this is what some other members of our society think about the right to life:

     One of the nation's finest universities (Princeton) has given a prestigious position to an advocate of infanticide. Peter Singer suggests that for perhaps a month after a baby is born, birth parents should be entitled to dispose of unwanted children, it is not surprising that the senate has what deserves to be called an Infanticide Caucus. The caucus has at least three members.

     A former member, Senator Rick Santorum, Republican of Pennsylvania, asked two Democrats, Feingold of Wisconsin and Lautenberg of New Jersey: "Suppose during such an abortion, during which a baby is delivered feet first until all but a portion of the skull is outside the mother, then its skull is punctured, its contents vacuumed, then collapsed, the baby slips all the way out of the birth canal. Should killing the baby even then be a permissible choice?" Neither senator would say "no."

     During the Oct. 20, 1999 debate, Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, joined the caucus: Santorum said to her, "You agree, once a child is born, separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed. Do you agree with that?"

     Boxer said, "I think when you bring your baby home..." She said more, but what she would not say was "yes."

                                                           (From an article in Newsweek by George Will)

     Please keep in your daily prayers Georgia House Rep. James Mills and those who support the Human Life Amendment, (H.R. 536)

     This article appears on our Franciscan website.                                                                                                                                                                                         Dennis Mallon, SFO