Amendment Two ~ Choice Vs. Life

By John and Deborah Giles

November 6, 2018 is the mid-term election, and in addition to a slate of candidates, Alabamians will be voting on four amendments to the Alabama Constitution. In this article, we will be talking about Amendment Two. If passed, the Alabama Constitution will recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life. Generally, there are three visible sides to this debate: those who want unlimited abortion, those who want to protect the sanctity of all human life from conception to natural death (except for the life of the mother), and those who are opposed to abortion (except in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother). In full disclosure, it is no surprise that I will be voting YES without blinking. Please don’t hang up the phone on me just yet; let’s get into the facts on this, so you can make a sound, rational decision.

Planned Parenthood (PP) is leading the effort to vote NO on this amendment. Why are they so adamant about keeping abortion legal in America; could it be large sums of money and their core philosophy? Even in the disturbing wake of mounting video recorded evidence of PP selling baby body parts, they are still receiving in excess of $500 million annually of federal tax dollars. In addition to the federal funding, PP charges anywhere from $350 - $950 for first trimester abortions and much more for second trimester abortions. PP is federally recognized as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, which excludes them from income tax. I am not sure how they do this, but even though non-profits are precluded by the IRS from engaging in elections, PP is publicly reported to be spending $20 - $30 million supporting Democrats for Congress in this general election cycle. I ran a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and while we could participate in voter education and lobbying, we could not engage in “express advocacy” or endorsing any candidate. Amazingly, the IRS attacked conservative Tea Party members, but they look the other way on PP, which is pouring huge sums of money into Alabama to defeat this amendment.

PP was founded by Margaret Sanger (1883 -1996), who was a turn of the century birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse. I challenge you to look her up yourself, because she had some very radical, liberal ideas. Most of her philosophical quotes are morally repugnant, even by the norms of her era, but they are imbedded into the molecular makeup of PP. Sanger formed PP to exterminate blacks. In 1939, she started: “The Negro Project” for the purpose of radically curbing the birth of black children. If this offends you, like it bristles me, check out this Sanger quote: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." Sanger had an abhorrent, horrific, belief system and appalling tone; but at least she was honest in the goals of PP, which are prevalent today.

Three high profile Republican women, along with the Alabama Exchange (ad hoc group consisting of several pro-life organizations) are leading the Vote YES effort in the state. Terry Lathan (Chair of the Alabama Republican Party), Twinkle Andress Cavanaugh (President of the Alabama Public Service Commission) and Mary Sue McClurkin (Shelby County Republican Representative) are leading the GOP get out the vote effort. Thank you ladies, for your leadership. This will be primarily a grassroots and social media driven outreach, and it will not match the well-funded PP opposition to Amendment Two.

PP will showcase in their ads that voting YES to the amendment will eliminate access to women, who are pregnant due to rape or incest. One of the three categories mentioned at the beginning of this article are those opposed to abortion except in the case of rape, incest and life of the mother. Pay close attention to this statistic: The Guttmacher Institute, which is a research division founded by PP, by its own data, states that rape, incest and the life of the mother represents less than 1% of all abortions. So another perspective is the reciprocal, which means that over 99% of all abortions are emergency measures for birth control, and they are not cases of rape, incest or the health of the mother as marketed by PP. Liberal Democrats, PP, and the media will focus their entire attention on less than 1% of all abortions. The life of the mother discussion is a non-issue. When the life of the expecting mother is at stake, like a tubal

pregnancy and the like, the tending physician will always put the life of the mother over her unborn child. Their argument is distorted at best, but now we take a close look at the deception around Roe v Wade.

If you follow my writings, there is no misunderstanding about my feelings of judicial activism and making law from the bench. Roe v. Wade was a classic model case as the pinnacle of judicial activism. Norma McCorvey (9/22/1947 – 2/18/2017), whom Deborah (my wife) and I knew, was the legal pseudo “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. Before becoming a Christian, McCorvey became a lesbian and ran an abortion clinic; her life was a wreck. McCorvey later in life repented, became an active pro-life Christian and our friend Reverend Flip Benham baptized her. Self-proclaimed feminist liberal lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were seeking out the perfect case to make abortion legal in America. McCorvey, a single, divorced, alcoholic woman became pregnant with her third child in 1969, wanted to abort her child, but in Texas abortion was illegal, except for the life of the mother. Imagine that; except for California and New York, prior to 1973, abortion was illegal in America, except in the case of the life of the mother (like a tubal pregnancy). It was handled as a Tenth Amendment, states rights issue. McCorvey was not a pretty, eye-candy kind of girl, but rather a downtrodden alcoholic, so the lawyers kept her hidden; she never appeared in press conferences or court and learned later that her case had won before the U.S. Supreme Court. These lawyers used McCorvey. In the media the lawyers said she was raped, which was completely false, but the most outrageous twist of the story is that McCorvey did not abort her third child.

In a 7-2 vote, this activist majority of the U.S. Supreme Court stretched the Fourth Amendment beyond recognition. You almost need to be on a hallucinating drug to understand their logic, because the Fourth Amendment is very narrow in scope and specific to criminal due process, as it relates to unwarranted searches and seizers. While most Americans believe they have a constitutional right to privacy; that notion is completely incorrect. The Fourth Amendment gives “people a right to secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In this case, the court looked from afar at the Fourth Amendment and saw an aura or a penumbra (implied rights) formed by emanations (a flowing) from those guarantees of their radical judicial interpretation of privacy applies to the expecting mother and her unborn child. The vague perceptions of privacy superseded human life. The court also craftily exchanges “life of the mother” with “health of the mother.” In this context, if an expecting mother had mental anguish or regrets of the pregnancy, this met the new definition of “health of the mother.” The 1973 Roe v. Wade case was not only based on fraudulent facts and completely outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment criminal proceeding protections, but it was also a predatory exploitation of a distraught alcoholic woman, who did not have an abortion. However, it became a landmark legal precedent, thus binding the hands of the lower courts. One can now see why there is such an elevated debate over who sits on the high court.

Science has proven many times over that life begins at conception; the moment the egg is fertilized, a blood cell and new life is formed. It is not just mere tissue; it is a baby and a fellow American. Many have attempted to redefine the argument to be a matter of choice, reproductive freedom, or a matter of imposing our religious views or morality on others. This is not a pro-choice position, but pro-abortion. The liberal media calls us anti-abortion, but I submit we are prolife. Please remember that abortion was illegal in this country prior to 1973, so for 197 years abortion was illegal in this country, and the last 45 years are based on a fraudulent case and a grave abuse of the constitution by the activist courts. Let’s keep in mind that the first choice was yielding to engage in sex. There is not even the slightest comparison between human life and abortion or as the spin doctors call it: choice.

In closing, there is a long standing notion that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights given to us by God, not the state, but Governments were formed to protect and preserve those rights. It may be time for the court to review the definition of human life, with science and facts as the basis.

Please Vote YES on Amendment Two and let’s restore the right to life for all, from conception to nature death.