Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STANEK: Unborn Victims Act helps aborted victims
The Illinois Leader ^ | 4/1/2004 | Jill Stanek

Posted on 04/01/2004 4:53:23 PM PST by unspun

Photo of Tracy Marciniak of Wisconsin holding her dead son, Zachariah, at his funeral. Zachariah was killed by his father when he punched Tracy in the stomach during her ninth month of pregnancy. He was convicted for injuring Tracy but not for killing Zachariah.

(Photo courtesy of National Right to Life)

OPINION -- In a statement released after last week’s passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act by the U.S. Senate, National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy warned, "Giving a fetus at any stage of development [emphasis hers] the same legal rights as the pregnant woman will undermine the right to abortion as guaranteed under Roe v. Wade."

Ah, Kim, out of the mouths of babe killers. You’re so right.

After President Bush signed UVVA today, it became a criminal offense to harm a preborn baby during the commission of a federal crime. In that case, the baby will be considered a human victim in her own right. And yes, Kim, this will make it ever more difficult to rationalize the legality of permitting that same baby to be killed if the perpetrator is her own mother.

Slowly, methodically, pro-lifers are dismembering Roe v. Wade. (They learned this technique from pro-aborts.)

Note that every pro-life advance made over the past few years has had the American public's approval. When the Supreme Court is eventually forced to revisit Roe v. Wade, Americans will be primed to accept it as constitutionally dead.

The 1973 Roe v Wade decision was couched on two shaky premises, both now toppled by scientific, legislative, and regulatory advances.

When the Supreme Court made abortion legal, part of Justice Harry Blackmun's rationale, as he wrote in the majority opinion, was: 1) the Court could not determine whether a fetus was a person protected by the 14th Amendment; and 2) the Court was not required to establish when life begins.

Blackmun feigned ignorance, but he interestingly left the door open for future debate. Specifically, he wrote (emphasis mine):

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment…. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. n51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument n52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

and

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

But in the last 30 years, there have been significant scientific and medical advances that specifically address when life begins and the personhood of fetuses:

The cumulative result of these and other advances is that in 2004 we recognize that preborn children are entitled to statutory identification, health benefits, protection against criminal conduct, and are pinpointed to exist as separate human entities from the single cell stage.

These are waiting to be used as evidence for what Blackmun rhetorically supposed would cause the “collapse” of the Roe v. Wade decision.

The 1973 Supreme Court interestingly addressed but ignored two critical questions: Is the fetus a person? Can there be a consensus drawn as to when life begins? They knew the plaintiff’s case failed if either could be answered in the affirmative, because the 14th Amendment would then apply.

We have the answers. We are now simply awaiting the opportunity for the Supreme Court to ask itself its own questions again.

© 2004 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved
_________

Thanks to attorney Ed Zielinsky for his help preparing this column.
_________

What are your thoughts concerning the issues raised in this commentary? Write a letter to the editor at letters@illinoisleader.com, and include your name and town.


Jill Stanek Jill Stanek became a leader in the Illinois conservative movement when she fought to stop "live birth abortion" after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn. In August 2002, President Bush asked Jill to his signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In January 2003, World Magazine named Jill one of the 30 most prominent pro-life leaders of the past 30 years. In November 2003, the White House invited Jill to President Bush's signing of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Jill continues to press for Illinois to become a state where unborn and newly born babies are safe. Jill is also pro-life coordinator for Concerned Women for America of Illinois and a public speaker around the country.

E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; blackmun; connerslaw; now; righttolife; rowevswade; rowevwade; stanek; unbornvictims; unbornvictimsact
Excellent news and excellent analysis by Jill Stanek.

I urge you to go to the source page and see the photo, to bring it home.

1 posted on 04/01/2004 4:53:24 PM PST by unspun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All


Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!


2 posted on 04/01/2004 4:56:04 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Hi Mom! Hi Dad!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Slowly, methodically, pro-lifers are dismembering Roe v. Wade. (They learned this technique from pro-aborts.)

This is called incrementalism. It has been an insidiously effective way of "inserting" such horrors as Roe v Wade into our society. It is a much favored method of effecting social change by the extreme liberal left. Look at what Social Security started out as, then look at what we have now: Socialist security. Its about time we started fighting our opponents on their own playing field! I will still continue to pray that one day I will wake up and RvW will be a thing of the past, but in no way will I shrug off the small victories. The left sure doesn't.

3 posted on 04/01/2004 5:13:12 PM PST by grellis (Che cosa ha mangiato?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
she fought to stop "live birth abortion" after witnessing one as an RN at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn.

Its like driving the nails back in His hands, isn't it.

4 posted on 04/01/2004 5:16:15 PM PST by grellis (Che cosa ha mangiato?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grellis
Well said. I pray that this is OUR step in the right direction.
5 posted on 04/01/2004 5:50:55 PM PST by proudmilitarymrs (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: grellis; NormalGuy; chicagolady; TheRightGuy; RedWing9; Petruchio; BillyBoy; cfrels; ...
Thank you for those comments. A ping for pro-lifers to this important piece.
Also, here's a letter to editor of The Leader, to back it up:

Submitted for consideration

Thank you, to The Leader, Jill Stanek, and Ed Zielinsky for your analysis regarding the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

Credit goes to President George W. Bush and to the people of conscience (and a bit of courage) in our Congress, for this pivotal Act. Does anyone wonder what it means, to vote for "compassionate conservatives?" Does it make any difference, whether we recruit, support, and elect (actual) Republicans and others who have a respect for the U.S. Constitution?

Here's an answer: It makes a difference, if enough of us become active in the sacred responsibility of electoral campaigning. The forces for killing children know this, from NOW, NARAL, Emily's List, and Planned "Parenthood," to Terry Cosgrove's Personal PAC in our state --and to many of the power and money brokers of both political parties here.

In order to keep denying our Right to Life, we deny our Declaration of Independence and thus our very grounds for being a nation. If we deny our responsibility, we deny our rights. This is a struggle for America and if we are not actively and wisely applying ourselves in it, the denial is ours -- we the People our nation depends upon, you and I, who must give an account for what we have done about it. "Does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?" Nothing prevents us from spending our resources together. In one end or another, that will be shown, too.

Our choices are clear here in Illinois this year. Either we get behind not only George W. Bush and Jack Ryan, but take the time to find out now, where our efforts make a difference for legislative and local candidates, or we will find even our critical legislation, such as this very Act of Congress, overturned by the groundless fiat of dictatorial "justices" in funeral black robes.

Arlen Williams
La Grange Park, IL

6 posted on 04/01/2004 5:56:04 PM PST by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thanks for the ping... that's a very well written article.

Thank goodness for leaders like our President who support a culture of life and recognize that abortion is the ultimate form of discrimination, hypocrisy, reckless selfishness, and a denial of proven medical science.

7 posted on 04/01/2004 7:20:21 PM PST by mr.sarcastic (4 more years! 4 more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: zip; BOBWADE
ping
8 posted on 04/01/2004 7:27:38 PM PST by Mrs Zip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Thanks for the ping!
9 posted on 04/01/2004 9:40:52 PM PST by Alamo-Girl (Glad to be a monthly contributor to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: unspun
WOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO!
10 posted on 04/02/2004 4:05:30 AM PST by chicagolady (Mexican Elite say: EXPORT Poverty Let the American Taxpayer foot the bill !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Great article and letter to the editor. FReeped the poll @ the source link too. Good job Mr. W.
11 posted on 04/02/2004 4:50:16 AM PST by Kudsman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Great article, Unspun.
12 posted on 04/02/2004 5:38:44 AM PST by m1-lightning (God, Guns, and Country!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
Great post!
13 posted on 04/02/2004 5:43:18 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Support Free Republic; unspun; grellis; NormalGuy; chicagolady; TheRightGuy; RedWing9; Petruchio; ..

When I first saw this picture, I thought it read:
OBAMA IS NEXT
I must need another cup of coffee.


14 posted on 04/02/2004 5:53:19 AM PST by TheRightGuy (ERROR CODE 018974523: Random Tagline Compiler Failure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mr.sarcastic
...and a denial of proven medical science.

Speaking of science...I am certainly no biologist, but isn't unique human DNA created at conception? Here in Michigan, we have a (Canadian!) governor, Jennifer "Jenny From The Block" Granholm, who claims to be a Catholic in good standing but supports abortion "rights". She supports her stance on the specious grounds that it is not her duty to force others to follow her religious beliefs. However, I believe she is wrong (along with all other pro-aborts) on purely scientific grounds. Unless I am wrong, and I don't think that I am, a unique, individual human life is the result of conception. Don't our legislators have an obligation to protect that life?

And, if that's the case, shouldn't ALL pro-abort politicians be recalled for gross dereliction of duty?

15 posted on 04/02/2004 6:13:40 AM PST by grellis (Che cosa ha mangiato?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kudsman; m1-lightning; <1/1,000,000th%; TheRightGuy; chicagolady; mr.sarcastic; grellis
A thanks for the attention, Right to Life, good for W, good for Jill, let's get out there and get conservatives elected ping.
16 posted on 04/07/2004 4:01:49 PM PDT by unspun (The uncontextualized life is not worth living. | I'm not "Unspun w/ AnnaZ" but I appreciate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson