Long time no see, dear readers! Mea maxima culpa for being away for so long, but work was a necessary evil. This author was originally going to write on another topic, but given the flurry of internet fights going on over the Supreme Court Nominee and the possible overturn of Roe v. Wade, your absentee author felt this was a pertinent topic to write on, given the author’s own status of expecting her own bundle of joy in October. Now that she has the time to actually write on her maternity leave, said author is much obliged and happy to do so after so long of an absence from this venerable blog space.

So, down to the nitty-gritty: what is personhood? Definitively speaking, personhood is the status of being a person and having the rights according to said status. However, it gets a bit dicey when it comes to applying the status of person to a preborn child. (Note the use of preborn, which emphasizes the personhood of a child from the moment of their conception.)

Apparently in 1973 when they ruled on Roe v. Wade (and later on in 1992, with Planned Parenthood v. Casey), the American Supreme Court felt that in their oh so enlightened status, they could legislate from the bench and write it into constitutional law that a preborn child is not a “person.” They ruled that any unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion was unconstitutional (you know, because the Founding Fathers were apparently so concerned about the “right” of a mother to MURDER her preborn child for her own convenience, even though no language is actually written in the Constitution concerning this heinous act), and also ruled that states criminalizing abortion in most instances violated the mother’s right to privacy, which implicitly exists under the liberty guarantee of the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment:

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Perhaps this author needs to get her eyes examined (it is honestly long overdue), but she can’t help but notice a small, probably insignificant detail written into the due process clause of the 14th Amendment…

“…nor shall any state deprive any person of LIFE…”

See the following viral video to illustrate this point, from a lovely pro-life woman in our neighboring country to the north, Canada:

How did the Supreme Court make such a disastrous error? Because unfortunately, in their aim to legislate from the bench the “right” to MURDER a preborn child as a matter of the mother’s convenience, they never took into account the fact that our Founding Fathers intended the meaning of the word “person” to include those citizens of the United States that were yet to be born! This is what is called “constitutional originalism,” and the two main streams of thought include:

• The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
• The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Scalia, are associated with this view.

In layman’s terms, this means that even if the matter of personhood is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, that because the Founding Fathers and the prevailing views at the time AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME the personhood of a preborn child from the moment of conception, that said preborn child has all of the God-given rights entailed to them by said personhood status!

Or if you want the short, SHORT version: the preborn baby has the same rights as born person, the right to LIFE in the due process cause protects their life, so NO ABORTION ALLOWED.

So, how do we go about enforcing said right to life in the constitution and the personhood of preborn children? The quickest way would be to have the President issue an Executive Order defining personhood explicitly and that it is effective from the moment of conception, but that would not be the most concrete method either. Executive orders are very limited in scope and power, so this is not the most feasible option.

What about getting a law to pass that defines personhood and when it starts? Sadly, that would likely not work either, given the current makeup of our politicians needed to pass said law with a simlple majority (218 – 435) in the House, and a simple majority (51 – 100) in the Senate, and then they BOTH have to agree on what language is presented in the bill in the first place! IF they agree, it goes to ANOTHER vote in the House and Senate, and only then, IF it passes, does it go to the desk of the President. Or, you could have an Amendment to the Constitution passed by two-third’s majority in both the House and the Senate, but this also has little to no chance of happening.(This author honestly got a headache from having to research our legislative process, it’s so convoluted.)

So what WOULD actually work? The best chance that a definition of personhood would have is to call what is known as a “Constitutional Convention.” Many of you readers may recognize this as what happened when they originally wrote the Constitution. What many people don’t know is that this is an alternate way of how amendments to the Constitution can get passed as well. A fine example of an amendment would be in regards to the institution and later repeal of Prohibition: the 18th Amendment enforced it in 1920, and it was later repealed with the 21st Amendment in 1933.

So how is a Constitutional Convention called? First, it needs to be called for by two-third’s (or 34 out of 50) of the state legislatures regarding the proposed amendment. Then the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourth’s (or 38 out of 50) states or their respective ratifying conventions. The personhood amendment would then become law and be written into the Constitution.

Is there an easy way to enshrine personhood into law? The simple answer is no, but it still must be done, for the preborn children of our country that have no voice under the law, and in memory of the millions of those preborn children murdered under the scourge of abortion “rights.”

Let’s get to it, people! (Yes, the pun is fully intended.) This personhood law is not going to make itself.

|

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 12th, 2018 at 1:25 PM . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.