theultimateoutcast says:
February 11, 2012 at 1:38 am

Interesting how few people with uterus’s are in support of this bill. Will the unborn get social security cards, too? What if there is an unborn person in a woman from Russia or Kenya who is visiting relatives? Would that make their unborn baby a U.S. citizen when she visits?

Tom, this argument is an over-reach by the extreme right. Why have this issue on your conscience anyway? I never understand it. This is about sexual/moral activities of women. Have you pulled out every time you have sex so that a pregnancy would not result? That’s probably the most personal question anyone on-line ever asked you. If it feels invasive, good. Now you know how if feels.

A woman can not deny her personal activity when she is pretty much “marked” when she becomes pregnant and it’s up to every Tom out there to have an opinion about it. Every person has a great plan for her baby…before it gets here.

If she does not want it, I don’t either. Life may not be as rosy as you dream it for someone growing up with a mother who does not want them. Plus, I have the belief that life is very fluid. The soul that may have come through that baby will come through another in a time, place and woman ready to receive it.

Have peace and respect for what god has already ordained: women govern the entrance to life.

Many women tend to see the abortion issue as a women’s rights issue. That is, anyone who does not approve and endorse a woman’s “right to choose” must hate women. So when a woman demands her “rights” as a woman, some men shrug their shoulders, and others react angrily. I do not think either reaction helpful.

To debate thoughtfully, we must set aside our personal viewpoint. In this case, we must view the issue of abortion from a broader perspective. If we are not willing to consider different points of view, we will oversimplify the issue.

The view of the unborn child. We do not know, and we cannot ask the unborn how they feel about being aborted or the prospect of being born. All we each can do is use our imagination. What if that unborn child had been you or someone you love?

The view of the mother. God made women the primary caretakers of young. God also gave each of us a free will. So a woman can consider the option of abortion. She can decide whether she wants to treat her unborn child as a human being or as merely a piece of property with the potential to become a human being.

The view of the father. Tradition and biology makes fathers the primary caretakers of their childbearing wives. Some men tend to approach this responsibility as if women were children or mere chattel, but the Bible commands men to love their wives as Jesus loved us. Why does God want a man to love his wife?

Malachi 2:15 Amplified Bible (AMP)

And did not God make [you and your wife] one [flesh]? Did not One make you and preserve your spirit alive? And why [did God make you two] one? Because He sought a godly offspring [from your union]. Therefore take heed to yourselves, and let no one deal treacherously and be faithless to the wife of his youth.

Nonetheless, men too have a free will. So a man can use a woman, or he can love a woman.

The view of government. What government exists to do is to protect our rights. That obligation to protect extends to the weak and unknowing. Can we allow the mere fact there are complex issues involved set aside this responsibility? Then whose rights and what rights will government protect?

Is an unborn child a human being? When? We do not know. If an unborn child is a human being, then that child’s neighbors have obligation to help the child’s mother provide a safe harbor in the womb. If not, then the mother should be able to do as she wishes. The problem? We have lots of speculation, but we don’t know The Truth.

What such moral difficulties should do is highlight the need for caution and care. Yet many in our society take the opposite tact; they insist they know The Truth, that either government or private entities should be required to pay for abortions. Such appalling arrogance should frighten us all. These people respect no one’s rights.

When a People becomes selfish and indifferent to each others rights — when each insists upon having his own way — pride has replaced love. Then we are reduced to The Law of the Jungle.

The view of God. To know the ways of God more than I might otherwise, I reference the Bible. Unfortunately, what the Bible says about the unborn is somewhat ambiguous. Even if that were not the case, I suspect many abortion rights advocates would discard most of what is said in the Bible as either hyperbole or superstition. Nonetheless, here is a verse that speaks a self-evident truth.

Ecclesiastes 11:5 King James Version (KJV)

As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

Each child is a gift from God. As parents, we conceive, give birth, and raise a child all unknowing. We provide care for that which God created. No father or mother makes a child. We can choose only to receive a His gift. To fully appreciate His blessing, each must unite and become as one.

Friends,

My HB 1, known as the “Inalienable Right to Life Act” will be heard later this week in the House Courts of Justice Committee.  HB 1recognizes that human life begins at conception and also declares that unborn children and their parents have protectable legal interests.

The immediate effect of HB 1 will be to create a civil cause of action for the wrongful death of an unborn child to enable parents to sue a third party for damages if he or she wrongfully causes the death of their unborn baby either through assault or negligence.

Such legal protection exists in many states.  But Virginia does not allow civil legal recourse if the baby is not “born alive.” My bill will correct this, while acknowledging the humanity of the preborn child.

Those who oppose my bill have said the bill will allow prosecutions for abortionists, miscarriages, and oral contraception, but an almost identical law has been on the books in Missouri for more than 25 years and was left standing by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1989 decision, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.  None of these circumstances have come to pass in all these years.

Since HB 1 is not a criminal law, it will not affect the current practice of abortion but it will in fact recognize that unborn children are human beings. Ultimately this will lead to the question of how and why our laws can justly sanction the destruction of preborn children. Remember that pro-abortion  Justice Blackmun  in 1973 said that should the legal personhood of the unborn child be established, then Roe v. Wade which struck down all criminal laws banning abortion, would be reversed.

Please contact the members of the House Courts of Justice Committee below and ask them to support HB 1.

Thank you so much for your support!
Delegate Bob Marshall

PS:   Please join me and pro-lifers from around Virginia in a “Rally for Life” on the Richmond Capitol Grounds in support of HB 1 and other pro-life bills on Wednesday, February 15, at 10:45 AM – 12:00 NOON. Here is a flyer with more information.

Courts of Justice Committee Members:

• Chairman Dave Albo - deldalbo@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1042
• Delegate Terry Kilgore - deltkilgore@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1001
• Delegate Robert Bell - delrbell@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1058
• Delegate Ben Cline - delbcline@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1024
• Delegate Sal Iaquinto - delsiaquinto@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1084
• Delegate Todd Gilbert - deltgilbert@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1015
• Delegate Jackson Miller - deljmiller@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1050
• Delegate Manoli Loupassi - delmloupassi@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1068
• Delegate Ronald Villanueva - delrvillanueva@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1021
• Delegate Gregory Habeeb - delghabeeb@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1008
• Delegate Peter Farrell - delpfarrell@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1056
• Delegate Randy Minchew - delrminchew@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1010
• Delegate Richard Morris - delrmorris@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1064
• Delegate Joe Johnson - deljjohnson@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1004
• Delegate Vivian Watts - delvwatts@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1039
• Delegate David Toscano - deldtoscano@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1057
• Delegate Charniele Herring - delcherring@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1046

Delegate Jennifer McClellan - deljmcclellan@house.virginia.gov - 804-698-1071

The Virginia Society for Human Life is pleased to announce today that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act has been introduced into the Virginia General Assembly 2012 Session. The bill, which has been introduced in both Houses of the General Assembly, is a powerful new protective law that recognizes the humanity of unborn children from a unique perspective, their ability to feel pain in the womb.

In the Senate, Senator Mark Obenshain, R -26th district is the chief patron. In the House the bill’s chief patron is Delegate Rich Anderson, R- 51st district. The Senate bill is SB 637. The House version is HB 1285. Already there are several members on both sides of the aisle that have expressed support for this important pro-life bill, including Sen. Chuck Colgan, D – 29th district.

This important bill, developed for VSHL with the help of the National Right to Life Committee State Legislation team, would protect unborn children from abortion after the point during pregnancy at which it can be scientifically proven that the baby in the womb is capable of feeling pain. The Unborn Child Protection Act has already passed into law in 5 other states, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Idaho and Alabama. It is the hope of VSHL that the Commonwealth of Virginia will be the sixth state to pass this life saving law. (continued here)

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Many accuse Romney of flip-flopping on social issues.

Consider this quote:

Q: Why such a dramatic and profound change after pledging never to waiver on a woman’s right to choose?

A: I was always personally opposed to abortion, as I think almost everyone in this nation is. And the question for me was, what is the role of government? And it was quite theoretical and philosophical to consider what the role of government should be in this regard, and I felt that the Supreme Court had spoken and that government shouldn’t be involved and let people make their own decision. That all made a lot of sense to me. Then I became governor and the theoretical became reality. A bill came to my desk which related to the preservation of life. I recognized that I simply could not be part of an effort that would cause the destruction of human lift. And I didn’t hide from that change of heart. I recognize it’s a change. Every piece of legislation which came to my desk in the coming years as the governor, I came down on the side of preserving the sanctity of life.

Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series Dec 16, 2007 (from here)

Is Romney’s change of heart real? Hard to tell, and the news media has had fun with Romney “evolving” position. For example, here the Washington Post notes an apparent contradiction.

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said this week that as president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, two weeks after telling a national television audience that he supports a constitutional amendment to ban the procedure nationwide. (from here)

One explanation for this contradiction is the complexity of the issue. What should a constitutional amendment say about abortion? How would one enforce a law against abortion? How would you get a jury to convict? Without a good answer, it may be best to leave the issue to the states.

Here is a statement Romney included on the 2008 version of his website.

“I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Globe, Op-Ed, 7/26/05) (from here)

Adding to the confusion is what Romney did when Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed same-sex marriage. Romney insisted that Justices of the Peace comply. Why?

“As Popeye used to say, ‘I am what I am,’” Romney sighed. “I’m as clear as I can be to people as to what my views are. When I ran for office I indicated I did not favor same-sex marriage or civil unions and I have simply stood by that position. At the same time, I’ve indicated I’m a person who will follow the law. I respect the process of the law and if the legal processes result in a conclusion I disagree with, I will nonetheless follow the law. I swore to do that when I became governor. A lot of what is passed by the legislature is not as I would pass it, but I will implement it and enforce it.” (from here)

In addition, Romney has had a change of heart on campaign finance reform (from here and here). The scary thing is that Washington Post thinks that at one time Romney was right about campaign finance reform.

Public testimony will be heard this Thursday in Richmond to implement the first trimester abortion clinic regulation bill which passed in the 2011 General Assembly session (SB 924) which requires the Board of Health to issue regulations governing abortions and abortion clinics.

If you would like to review the proposed regulations you can view them by clicking on the following link (You must scroll down a bit to see the regulations):September 15 2011 Agenda and Materials

After a nearly 16 year legislative struggle, Virginia will issue regulations governing abortions performed in the first three months of pregnancy.   Similar proposals were upheld in the Fourth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond in a challenge to a South Carolina law.

The regulations reflect safety guidelines of the American College of Ob/Gyn for surgery, Planned Parenthood’s medical standards, National Abortion Federation practices, and the American Institute of Architects medical facility standards.

As background, in 1992, two employees of an abortion clinic filed safety complaints with the S.C. Department of Health but nothing could be done.  In hearings, past abortion clients told of bloody sheets and cots, a dog in a procedure room, and dirty bathrooms in legal abortion “clinics.”

To this day, the federal CDC, including its employees who were amicus parties to legalize abortion, and state public health departments, have refused to collect relevant abortion complication data.  The proposed Virginia abortion regulations do not provide for the collection of abortion complication data because no other surgery complications are required to be reported to public health authorities.   Inclusion of such a provision I believe would provide a hook for abortionists like Planned Parenthood to delay the regulations. Otherwise the proposed abortion regulations reflect practices adopted elsewhere in the laws of Virginia.

However, the proposed regulations do require that abortion clinics have hospital admission privileges as a condition of licensure. This will put a crimp into the ability of the fly in out of state abortionists who come here to violate the ancient Oath of Hippocrates by killing one half of the patients who come to these so-called health centers.

Let’s remember, legal abortions are never safe for children, and they complicate future childbirth especially if a first pregnancy is aborted.

Some persons opposed to abortion may think that supporting regulations such as these which will have the practical effect of reducing the number of children killed by abortion and the numbers of women injured may somehow make one complicit in abortion.

Pope John Paul II addressed such concerns in his letter The Gospel of Life, (Evangelium Vitae) in 1995. He noted that:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent.  …  when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Therefore, I urge you to participate in the public comment period and I would like to ask you to contact the Virginia Board of Health to support the the proposed abortion regulations — Emails and faxes need to be received by September 15.  A simple email saying your support the regulations is all you need do. Send to joe.hilbert@vdh.virginia.gov or to commissioner.remely@vdh.virginia.gov or by fax at 804-864-7022.

Thank you for your time and support.  If you have any questions or concerns please let me know.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall