Wisconsin Right to Life views the idea that the pill causes abortions as "speculation," according to executive director Barbara Lyons.There is a place for groups like WRTL, and I mean that. Politics is a tricky game. When Protestant groups first began supporting contraception in the 1930s(and a very limited support at that), it left a rift there for future generations of Christians who would never be taught what a natural marriage really is. Certainly they should still be given a voice in the pro-life movement without having to contradict what their own denomination teaches on the matter. I know, there are good people involved with Wisconsin Right to Life. But all of that said, there is nothing more scandalous than hearing that Catholic dioceses in this state take direction from and fund raise for Wisconsin Right to Life. We have been given Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae(The Gospel of Life). We can't simply reject Church teaching because we might score some token political points. Christ's Church has a plan not just for how we personally must act, but how laws and society should reflect that plan.
Do you really believe abortion can totally and completely be defeated in our lifetime? If not, you should find another movement. If so, then how will you do it? Compromising the Gospel of Life is admitting defeat. Supporters of Wisconsin Right to Life, consider contacting the home office and ask them to reconsider their position on this important legislation, and ask what their alternative plan is for defeating abortion in Wisconsin.
7 comments:
Seems to me that WRTL could at least 'sit it out' if Jacque's proposal moves forward.
The reasoning here is weak. I just don't get it. I wonder if the National Right to Life also opposes PersonhoodUSA.
And the alternative is to support mushy establishment GOPs who might one day when it finally becomes important appoint a decent justice.
Hi Virginia,
Do you think there is any merit to the claim that if the U.S. Supreme Court were to strike down a state personhood amendment, current laws restricting abortion in that state would also be stuck down because of the language in personhood amendments? In other words, by passing a personhood amendment would a state jeopardize laws that are currently being enforced to restrict abortion?
Hello Ed!:) I broke your question into 2 points, below. I hope this helps!
Would a personhood constitutional amendment negatively impact Wisconsin’s pre-Roe abortion statute?
The proposed constitutional amendment is not a risk to our current, pre-Roe law (Section 940.04, Wisconsin Statutes) by “implied repeal” or otherwise. The concern that 940.04 would be impliedly repealed by the personhood amendment is alleviated by case law. For recent law on the subject pertaining to a later constitutional amendment, State of Wisconsin v. Phillip Cole, 2003 WI 112, 264 Wis.2d 520, 665 N.W.2d 328, is instructive. The Court said in that case that it did not matter whether a statute predated or postdated a constitutional amendment in deciding the issue of the statute’s constitutionality. It found that an old statute restricting concealed carry was not repealed by a later amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms. Accordingly, concerns over 940.04 should not stand in the way of supporting our personhood amendment.
Would Wisconsin’s pre-Roe abortion statute be effective in re-criminalizing abortion in our state should Roe be overturned?
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned and the abortion issue remanded to the states, it is essential that Wisconsin law protect all human life from the moment of fertilization. Wisconsin Statutes 940.04 is marred by an obvious loophole – a “life of the mother” exception. Many abortionists believe that the very condition of pregnancy itself is a life threatening condition. Consequently, a life of the mother exception can be and is used as a massive statutory loophole through which to drive abortion on demand at all stages of human life and in all circumstances.
Thanks for your answers, Virginia. Are there Wisconsin state statutes restricting access to abortion that are currently enforced? Statute 940.04 is not currently enforced in Wisconsin because of Roe vs. Wade. If there are statutes currently enforced, and if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a personhood amendment passed in Wisconsin, would those state statutes also be overturned, or would they continue to be enforced?
Virginia's assessment of "implied repeal" stands for any clinic abortion regulations as well.
In fact, the entire implied repeal argument is actually pretty odd. WRTL asserts it, but the case is never made as to why we should believe this repeal by implication would ever take place. If WRTL is going to attack a sincere and popular pro-life strategy in full conformity with Christian teachings on moral law, you would expect they’d at least provide some legal basis for such a claim.
Thanks Virginia and Steve!
Post a Comment