In this video, Dr. Chris explains his stance on abortion (and the right to life) as it pertains to the Constitution. Please see below for the transcript.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. In the May 5, 2020 Republican Party primary election, I will be challenging the career-politician incumbent for the seat.
What is unique about my political philosophy is that it is based on the Constitution, all the time, with no exceptions. The Founders envisioned a constitutional, representative republic as the best means to secure our God-given natural rights and liberties. To this end, the Framers and Ratifiers adopted the Constitution as the protocol for Liberty. All legislation must be made in pursuance of the Constitution.
So, how does the Constitution relate to the act of abortion? And for that matter, it must be recognized that abortion is merely the first step on a slippery slope that involves euthanasia at any stage of human life, dictated by the whims of those in power. But back to the Constitution.
There are many constitutional arguments against abortion, and I have not been entirely satisfied with many of them until I came across a 2018 article from constitutional scholar and lecturer KrisAnne Hall (KrisAnneHall.com). I strongly suggest that you go to her website and search the “Articles” section to find “The Inalienable Right To Life.” Allow me now to quote from the article and paraphrase, so as to explain the best way to view the abortion controversy from a constitutional perspective.
Many people, myself included, have at times viewed abortion as a medical procedure, the regulation of which, according to Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment, is not an enumerated power of the Congress. Therefore, it is reserved to the states. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Then, invoking the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, in the context of the “incorporation doctrine,” would prohibit abortion on a state level. “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
KrisAnne Hall points out that this argument is unwise, as a too-heavy reliance on the 10th Amendment would support a situation that “states can ‘pass whatever laws they want.’” She recommends that we must remember that our government was formed with the consent of the governed. And what that meant was that we ceded to the government certain alienable rights but retained the unalienable, God-given natural rights.
So, what are those unalienable (or as we say today, inalienable) natural rights? Well, they are everything NOT ceded to the government in the Constitution, primarily found in Article 1, Section 8. A partial list of the inalienable rights can be found in the first eight Amendments to the Constitution. Some Founders were uneasy about not listing the inalienable rights, but others were just as uneasy about making a list, as the government could usurp these items, and the unlisted rights, as requiring regulation and “protection.”
So, to clarify and protect all of the God-given natural rights, James Madison suggested the 9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” KrisAnne goes on to state that “the Founders never intended for the states to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the federal government of the United States to disparage them.”
Ms. Hall also says, “The entire purpose for creating the states was to secure these rights that belong to the people, among them: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For example, our Founders never intended to invest in the states the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would not say ‘shall not be infringed.’”
She goes on: “Our Founders never intended for the states to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, to take away the right to religious liberty, or take someone’s person, property, or life without due process, else the states again would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact, most things, that the states should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away. …Life is an inalienable right the state was established to secure that right. … If we do not have life, we have neither liberty nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. … Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.”
I urge you to read the full article by KrisAnne Hall, as my brief synopsis may not have answered all of your questions. However, the point remains valid, that there are inalienable rights that neither the state nor the federal government may infringe. Utilizing the first nine amendments to the Constitution is a much more constitutionally consistent argument against abortion. So, you can see, that, the Constitution IS the Solution.
On May 5, 2020, I urge you to vote to secure your God-given natural rights and liberties. Vote for Dr. Chris Magiera and the Constitution Solution in the 2020 Republican primary election for the US House of Representatives in the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana. You can trust me to follow the Constitution, always, no with exceptions. Thank you.