Life is a continuum, from conception to birth, infancy, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, aging, and natural death. All of us are created in God’s image. Life has always been considered the first of the unalienable, God-given, natural rights. Some individuals, through misfortune or accident, are more vulnerable and require extra care. They are still in God’s image and deserve our protection.
Over the last 120 years, the Progressive Movement has viewed the situation differently. In the Progressive worldview, a right to life is dictated by moral relativism and is prioritized by the ability of an individual to contribute to society as a whole. This Progressive philosophy is morally bankrupt and repugnant.
If elected to Congress, my duty would be to repudiate the Secular Progressive agenda at every turn, and to restore the principles of the Constitution to our government. For example, our Republic is based upon the theory that the central government only has a few limited, defined powers.
Nowhere in these powers do you find any mention of abortion, medical care, or medical procedures. Nowhere.
Under the Tenth Amendment, those powers not delegated to the federal government are “reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”
With its judicial activism, the Supreme Court has acted unconstitutionally. This and similar opinions constitute” bad behavior” on the part of the justices and, there are constitutional Congressional and Executive remedies for such bad behavior.
So, does this mean that protecting all human life at any and all stages is only a state prerogative? Well, the answer is yes and no.
Both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments state that “no person shall be… deprived of life… without due process of law.” The Incorporation Doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment would imply that the states also must follow due process in this situation.
The key here is the definition of personhood. If personhood begins at conception, then Roe collapses. In the115th Congress, Senator Rand Paul proposed S 231, “The Life at Conception Act of 2017.” It never made it out of committee.
Perhaps a more certain approach would be a constitutional amendment defining life at conception. Guidance for the wording could come from other amendments already in place. The founders were very careful with their words. An amendment like this might need to be phrased along the lines of, “The right of citizens of the United States to life and due process cannot be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of being conceived but not yet born.”