Federal government out of step with pro-life America

Rogelio V. Solis AP In this June 6, 2011 file photo, Ezekiel Sowell, 7, right,of Tupelo, Miss., sings during a … Continued

Rogelio V. Solis


In this June 6, 2011 file photo, Ezekiel Sowell, 7, right,of Tupelo, Miss., sings during a prayer rally for the Personhood Amendment at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss.

A paradox of sorts is developing between the ways the federal government, as executed by the Obama administration, and the state governments, the governments closest to the people, view the lives of the unborn and those committed to defending those most defenseless in our society.

Over the past year, more and more states have enacted legislation aimed at protecting the unborn and women’s health. In fact, over 22 states have enacted legislation imposing strict regulations on abortion clinics, and when we say strict, we mean that for the first time abortion clinics will have to meet the minimum competency standards for safety that other surgical medical facilities must operate under.

This week, Mississippi voters are on the verge of passing a “personhood” amendment to their state constitution, which would define a “person” as “every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” It would afford every “person” in Mississippi the basic protections of the law, such as the right to life.

Ohio Governor John Kasich just signed a new parental consent bill into law, strengthening the state’s parental consent statute by requiring “clear and convincing evidence” to obtain a judicial override where a parent refuses to consent for an abortion.

Many other states are also considering pro-life legislation, such as fetal “heartbeat” legislation. Several other states have gone so far as to defund Planned Parenthood, and the ACLJ is involved in defending the right of these states to defund the abortion provider.

With these huge legislative strides at the state level and polling showing that more and more Americans consider themselves to be pro-life, it may be surprising that the federal government, led by the Obama administration, continues to push an anti-life agenda.

Rogelio V. Solis


In this Sept. 8, 2011 photo, Dr. Freda Bush, a Jackson, Miss., obstetrician-gynecologist, is flanked by other supporters of an amendment that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, at a news conference in Clinton, Miss. Supporters include Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, rear left, who is also including the initiative in his campaign for governor.

When the House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill, the Protect Life Act, last month to strip abortion funding from ObamaCare, the Obama administration immediately threatened a veto. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also issued strict new regulations aimed at religious organizations in an attempt to require them to provide health insurance for their employees that covers contraceptives and other drugs and services that may violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

In addition, the Justice Department has recently chosen to prosecute an elderly pro-life advocate for standing on a sidewalk near an abortion clinic to share his pro-life message with those seeking an abortion, while giving a person who assaulted the man a cakewalk.

These are just a few of the outrageous examples of our federal government and the Obama administration pushing a radical anti-life agenda on the American people. As social conservatives, we must continue to take a stand against this radical agenda and voice our support for the sanctity of human life.

It is clear that the American people are on the side of life, but there is still much work to be done in order to protect the unborn.

Jordan Sekulow is Executive Director of the American Center for Law & Justice and writes for On Faith’s blogging network at the Washington Post. Matthew Clark is an attorney for the ACLJ.

  • kperrine52

    Therefore; “to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin”! James 4:17

  • cricket44

    Thank God this didn’t pass. Read all the comments and it just gets more and more apparent that the anti-choice folks never met a fact they couldn’t ignore.

    Objective research. Try it sometime. Anti-choice sites lie as a matter of course and most of their statements are provably wrong.

    Yay, women are still considered people, not property, in Mississippi.

  • Catken1

    “Perhaps you could find a science book that states that life does not begin when an egg is fertilized and metabolism in a unique organism takes place. ”

    Perhaps you can find one that says that a woman’s humanity stops when she conceives a child? Or that her DNA is not human? Or that any human, ever, has the right to the use of another human’s body parts without her consent?

    “Women are considered profit to Planned Parenthood, but you are too stupid to see that you are being “played”.”

    Oh, yes, because having our choices concerning our most intimate organs taken away and given over to Big Daddy Government Who Knows What’s Best For Us is SO much better than having sovereignty over our own bodies, ourselves. Why don’t you start? Give over your body to government to be handed out to precious, innocent children who NEED your blood, your bone marrow, your kidney to live, at _government_’s discretion, never yours, without concern for what happens to you as a result?

  • kpharri

    ScottinVA: I don’t think you’ll find any textbook that tells you when “life begins” in an embryo, for the obvious reason that life is inherited, it never begins anew. A live sperm and a live egg combine to form a live zygote. The only time life actually began was a few billions of years ago in a process known as abiogenesis.

    And no one is arguing that a human embryo is not human. Homo sapien DNA is, obviously, in the embryo from the very beginning.

    Much more pertinent – and something you choose to ignore in your comment – is the actual term used in the Amendment, namely “person”. Amendment 26 is (probably intentionally) mute on the specific definition of this rather nebulous word. There is certainly no indication that “person” merely means “an embryo containing homo sapien DNA”.

  • ccnl1

    From the Land of Loading More and More and More Comments: (read carefully)

    Why the Christian Right no longer matters in presidential elections and why the federal government (especially BO and his re-election gurus) actually is in tune with the Immoral Majority:

    Once again, all the conservative votes in the country “ain’t” going to help a “pro-life” presidential candidate, i.e Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, in 2012 as the “Immoral Majority” rules the country and will be doing so for awhile. The “Immoral Majority” you ask?

    The fastest growing USA voting bloc: In 2008, the 70+ million “Roe vs. Wade mothers and fathers” of aborted womb-babies” whose ranks grow by two million per year i.e. 78+ million “IM” voters in 2012.

    2008 Presidential popular vote results:

    69,456,897 for pro-abortion/choice BO, 59,934,814 for “pro-life” JM.

    And all because many women fail to take the Pill once a day or men fail to use a condom even though in most cases these men have them in their pockets. (maybe they should be called the “Stupid Majority”?)

    (The failures of the widely used birth “control” methods i.e. the Pill and male condom have led to the large rate of abortions ( one million/yr) and STDs (19 million/yr) in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or condoms properly and/or use other safer birth control methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and STDs.)

    Added details available.

  • ezrasalias-socialize

    The only thing radical, Mr Sekulow, is the Christian right-wing. Thankfully the amendment failed and it is a victory for women over blastocysts. Go back to the bronze age, your imaginary god awaits you in a bit of burning shrubbery.

  • WBTessore

    Q.: What is the difference between “passed their children through the fire to Dagon” & abortion for children without parental consent?

    A.: The type of altar.

  • amelia45

    Below Catken1 said: “Because there is likewise scientific evidence that a woman’s life does not end at conception.”

    Oh, brava! There are two person’s involved in all this discussion about “personhood”: the unborn child and the pregnant woman. Both count. There are two “personhoods” to be considered.

    below, barrysal asked: ” Where would you be today, amelia45, if you were the one that was considered not to be a person when you were born?”

    “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Genesis 2:6-7, NKJV). Some translations call that “a living soul.” I was born, barrysal, and God breathed the breath of life in me, giving me life and a soul.

    We do not live in a world of black and white, but a world of infinite shades of gray.

  • stevem7

    @angry turtle — with your logic you should be a Supreme court judge.

  • theluckycountry

    your forehead must be bleeding profusely by now, after hitting it against a brick wall for so long. Brick walls can not recognise logic.

  • cricket44

    Jordan and Matt, I *highly* recommend you go read Ms. Dixon’s wonderful piece on “The Legal Personhood of Women.”

  • haveaheart

    “It would afford every “person” in Mississippi the basic protections of the law, such as the right to life.”

    Does this mean advocating counting these “persons” in the census? Allowing tax deductions for them? Making medical insurance available for them?

    How about this: If they’re fully human, then a woman who wishes to give her “person” up for adoption would be able to have it surgically removed and handed over to the adoptive parents, right?

    Or imagine being the adoptive parents. You’ve bought and paid for the baby; now you’re just waiting for the little “person” to step out into the world. But, wait! Something happens . . . an unpreventable biological accident. The little “person,” bought and paid for, dies before coming out on stage. Presumably, the adoptive parents can sue the natural parents for damages, and the state could charge the natural parents with manslaughter. (Maybe that would be “in vivo personslaughter”?)

    Absurdity? Of course. But that’s the bottom line with “personhood” legislation. It’s stupid in the extreme, and its propoents haven’t thought out even the most obvious ramifications.

  • tony55398

    During, the roaring 20’s abortion was rampant, though illegal. My mother often told me that when she was young, abortion was freely available from a little old lady in the area and many women chose it. More than law is needed to end abortion.

  • soprano2

    Abortion is murder and should be treated as such by each state’s laws and federal law. No abortion is justified. The problems in the lives of those who’ve had an abortion or are seeking an abortion or considering having an abortion started long before the pregnancy began. These are the problems that need addressing. These are are problems that infest our society. The underbelly, the private, the quiet problems and twisted circumstances and thinking that lie behind these decisions such as the one to have or support abortion. We humans are thinking creatures and we are a family. We need to start acting and thinking accordingly.

  • alicede1

    Obama is pushing his own agenda here, not that of the American people. He has not truly helped this country in any long-lasting way, and certainly not the least bit morally.

  • alicede1

    Not so. Does the fact that animals are not counted in a census indicate they are not alive? “Life” entails much more than being counted in a census or being able to be physically carried. Humans are humans while they are still in the womb… they can feel pain, they can show emotion, and they have fingernails… tiny fingernails…and a heart.
    If people Truly did not believe this were the case, there would be no parents shedding tears of joy when they look at an ultrasound of their own baby only a couple of months after conception.

  • alicede1

    It didn’t pass … yet. And the fact that tiny humans are still humans has nothing to do with women being considered property. I can think of someone else who never met a fact he/she couldn’t ignore! … the one to whom I’m replying!

  • Kaya1

    Thanks, Jordan and Matthew, for the article. Informative. God bless.

  • deannbennett2732

    A baby is concieved and begins to become a human at the point of conception. One of the first thing a baby developes is a heart. Someone needs to convience Obama to have one. He cuts education, he makes cuts on school funding, yet he stills supports sending support to Planned Parenthood. Tell him to cut abortion and fund schooling.