Personhood.
Personhood for the unborn. What pro-lifer could be against such a thing. Well, I suppose that no pro-lifer is opposed to personhood in principle. Some oppose personhood as a strategy.
Personhood can never work, they say. At least not now. The better approach is incremental. Focus on the achievable. That might seem like good sense. Steve Ertelt of Lifenews.com thinks this is the way to go.
In order to defeat Obama and ultimately stop abortions, personhood amendments must be put aside in 2012 so the pro-life community can focus on the number one goal: installing a pro-life president who will put the nation in a position to legally protect unborn children.
But Shaun Kenney, also at Redstate says, not so fast. Let’s look at what the “incremental and achievable” strategy has gotten us.
Arguments against are legion: it bleeds cash and resources, it’s not politically viable, and worst of all, it deprives Republicans the chance to elect a pro-life president with a nominally pro-life Congress.
Of course, were this even remotely true, abortion would have ended with the election of George W. Bush, and the Republican Congress would have passed a series of bills defunding Planned Parenthood, mandating parental notification and consent laws, passing a series of fetal pain bills, forcing abortion clinics to meet the basic standards of medical care, and perhaps even joined hands with the personhood movement and passed a bill recognizing the basic right to exist — ultimately thrusting the decision into the hands of a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court and ending abortion once and for all.
One small problem. This never happened.
Kenny then goes on to make the case for Personhood as a strategy.
I am torn in this debate having been in the Steve Ertelt camp for years, but increasingly I am drawn to the personhood movement, again as a strategy. I am truly on the fence.
This is a very important debate within the pro-life movement.
Please read both articles (here and here) and let me know what you think.
December 22, 2010 at 5:16 am
I have no problem with "Personhood" as a kind of movement to bring about awareness of the humanity of the unborn. For 37 years the unborn have been stripped of their dignity as human beings and denied their rights as persons under the law. It's time that our nation restored the right to life of every human being from the moment of conception and it's good to make people aware of the humanity of the unborn.
As a strategy for amending state constitutions in an effort to challenge Roe v. Wade, however, the movement is a bit flawed. The problem is that it's nothing the Court has not heard before. The court said in Roe that it would not allow Texas, and by extension any state or branch of government, to overcome the constitutional right to abortion (as conjured up by the Court) by adopting a certain "theory" of human life (Roe, 410U.S.at 162). The Court has not changed its mind since Roe, and it knew the facts of human development at that time. Therefore, if the amendment is meant to be a direct attack on Roe v. Wade, it is poorly advised and could, with the current make-up of the Court, actually end up codifying Roe and putting us further back. Direct attacks in law, as in war, lead to defeat if they are mounted in the wrong circumstances. It gains nothing to act without a strategy that has a decent chance of succeeding.
This is an excellent article by Austin Ruse at The Catholic Thing: The Personhood Movement: Right and Wrong
December 22, 2010 at 8:24 am
I actually think that the better approach is the relational approach. The problem with the personhood approach is that it focuses solely on the baby. The "other side" hears with that a lack of care for the mother. This is not the case with pro-lifers, but that is what others who are anti-life hear. I think the better way to go is relational because, as many theologians have begun to point out, it is impossible to be a person without first having relationship. To focus on the total society that an individual is raised in – ie the family – helps ensure that mothers get the support they need, fathers are challenged to give the care they are called to, and the life of the child is still respected. Some of the most successful pro-life ministries, ministries which actively seek ways to help women bring their child to term when contemplating an abortion, are based on the relational model.
December 22, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I think that putting one's faith in laws and political change is only slightly less sane than putting ones faith in the Easter Bunny.
Until the populace is virtuous again, I have little hope that the government (which is typically made up of the least virtuous) is going to produce anything good.
If you want abortion to end, become holy and encourage those around you to do the same.
December 22, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Why can't we do both? (I mean pursue personhood amendments and try to elect a pro-life president.) I realize that the resources of the pro-life movement are not infinite, but they also are not so small that we cannot pursue multiple strategies at once. Who knows which one will be more successful, so why does it have to be either/or?
And of course, the options mentioned here cover only one aspect of the pro-life movement, namely the political aspect. But in my opinion, this is not even the most important aspect of the pro-life movement. We also must not forget that we will continue to support crisis pregnancy centers and other means of supporting mothers who choose life. And we will continue to focus on educating people on life issues, in the hope of bringing more people to support life. The pro-life movement has many people with many different talents; we can do all of this. We don't have to do just one thing.
December 22, 2010 at 2:49 pm
We also must not forget that we will continue to support crisis pregnancy centers and other means of supporting mothers who choose life.
By the way, I didn't mean to imply that we should not support mothers who have chosen to abort. Post-abortion counseling/therapy is of course a major part of the pro-life movement as well.
December 22, 2010 at 4:56 pm
What business is it of ours (John 21:22)
Satan's slaves murdering their babies is their affair – and they know it. (Catechism 35, 46, 2467)
The focus for Catholics should be on keeping Catholics in truth. Working to change legislation in this world whose Prince is the evil one is at variance with Christ's teaching.
Leave the dead to bury their own dead (Luke 9:60)
December 22, 2010 at 7:20 pm
I will support the personhood amendments because the unborn child is a person. It is simply the truth of the matter.
When a mother loses her unborn child does she not grieve over the loss of the life of her child in the miscarriage?
Yes, I know it is a mountain and we may not overturn Roe but we must continue to keep the issue before the public. We cannot rest! The enemy of souls does not rest.
Yes, it all starts long before the girl comes to take the life of her child. It starts in our sex saturated society and in the so=called sex education in the schools, it starts with the immoral examples of many parents and the glamorizing of immoral celebrities.
The wages of sin is still death.
December 22, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Legally personhood is the linchpin to dismantling Roe v. Wade:
From Roe v. Wade Oral Reargument
“The basic constitutional question, initially is, whether or not the unborn fetus is a person. That’s critical to this case is it not?”
“Could Texas, constitutionally in your view, declare, by statute, that a fetus is a person for all constitutional purposes?”(Chief Justice Burger)
“The state could OBVIOUSLY adopt that kind of statute, and then it would have to be adjudicated.” (Pro-abort Attorney, Sarah Weddington)
FACT: As unbelievable as it may seem, the idea of defining a preborn child as a person has never been litigated after Roe. Why? Because pro-lifers such as Steven Ertelt, National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, and others, have not allowed it to happen. Why? Because, personhood raises questions that are not good for electing Republicans, and all of the above groups believe in the Machiavellian ethic of the ends justifying the means, i.e. consenting to the stripping of the humanity and personhood of some (rape, incest, health and life of the mother, first trimester, pre-viability, etc.) for the hope that the acquisition of political power will allow for an imposition of their will.
Educationally:
Personhood Amendments raise questions that no other incremental legislation raises, which is of great importance to Catholics: are some forms of "birth control" killing off little persons? does IVF violate the right to life of persons? What is the true definition of conception and pregnancy? All of these questions that are raised by Personhood Amendments are otherwise given up as a lost cause by pragmatic or incremental pro-lifers, yet the educational value of these discussions are of paramount importance if we are ever going to truly arrive at a point when the right to life is respected.
Theologically:
The catechism tell us in Paragraph 2270:
"Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
The only strategy that I know tries to do this, is Personhood.
For all these reasons, and for the basic reason that it is always the right time to do the right thing, I am very much in support of Personhood Amendments.
December 22, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Anonymous, who attacks me but doesn't have the respect or decency to publicly state his name, is wrong.
In Wester, the court ruled that the state of Missouri has the right to determine that human life beings at conception/fertilization, as the personhood amendment would state. It then went on to keep abortions legal.
As Chelsea says above, this was litigated in Roe, too.
You can propose all the personhood amendments you want but until you change the Supreme Court, they will lose. I know you may not like that, but there's no reason for attacking the rest of us for not denying this truth.
December 22, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Patrick, thanks for the link. Apparently Shaun missed the part where we've been able to get four pro-life justices on the Supreme Court and we're one vote away from overturning Roe. That's massive success.
He must have also missed how, while we've been doing that, we've cut abortions 25 percent nationally, dropped them 50 percent in some states, closed hundreds of abortion centers, put tons of abortion practitioners out of business, etc.
What he misses is the fact that the amendment in the Supreme Court, at current, is dead on arrival. It will never save one single baby until we change the courts.
We may hate politics, think it takes too long for change to happen, etc. but the fact remains that changing the Supreme Court is the only option to end abortion. There is no other way.
Paul, the reason we can't do both is the certain failure of the amendment gives the pro-life movement another Supreme Court case to have to overcome. And any time and money spent on it takes away from the efforts to employ the only solution to ending abortions, changing the court to overturn Roe and be able to declare an amendment or abortion ban constitutional someday.
— Steven Ertelt
December 22, 2010 at 10:42 pm
The reason the country has not become galvanized against abortion is simply because it has not literally and graphically seen the process. It's the same with the repeal of DADT. Never is it mentioned that the acts are immoral and that souls could be lost. People are generally tolerant and don't want to know the truth- that truth could be painful and maybe make them change. Unfortunate
December 23, 2010 at 12:07 am
I'm with Paul H and some of the anonymouses. I will support personhood amendments because they are true, regardless of whether they are "convenient" or "effective". If we focus on only one approach to ending abortion the opposition will put all of their efforts in defeating that approach. We will only reach one group of people (the ones who care about that issue) and will never have a majority behind the movement.
While I like some methods better than others, I think we need them all to chip away at injustice. The scourge of abortion, euthanasia, and other life issues is large enough to encompass all of these approaches and more.
December 23, 2010 at 1:03 am
The human being is, according to St. Thomas Aquinas: “an individual substance of a rational nature”. “We hold these truth to be self-evident that all men are CREATED equal”, not born equal. Government cannot give life, or sovereign personhood. Government cannot take life, or deny sovereign personhood. The government can only give a sovereign person citizenship, the FREEDOM to constitute the nation through his sovereign personhood, to keep the nation’s laws and pay taxes. Sovereign personhood is among the unalienable civil rights endowed by “OUR CREATOR” and the standard of Justice.
The Supreme Court says it does not know if the unborn is a sovereign person, then “the benefit of a doubt” is given. The judges must recuse themselves if they are ignorant of any fact. This makes Roe v. Wade a miscarriage of Justice and malfeasance. The government does not give life. The government ought not take life.
I AM, THEREFORE, I AM. The state says that I am not. I constitute the state with my sovereign personhood. If I do not constitute the sovereign state with my sovereign personhood, the state does not exist.
December 23, 2010 at 1:57 am
I can't help but see this as a truth debate.
What is truth? I know I did not become the multi-cellular being I am now with out having once been a single cell organism comprised partly of my mother's ovum and partly of my father's sperm.
That being true, was I less of a person at conception than I am now? If I had never been that person, I would never be this person.
The person-hood argument may be inconvenient in a culture that accepts fallacious arguments as fact on a daily basis (just watch the news), but the person-hood argument is true, factual, and scientifically proven.
We are persons. We were persons when we were minutia. We continue to be persons as we grow. We all are persons.
December 23, 2010 at 5:02 am
Dear Mr. Ertelt,
I understand that you are not a lawyer, I am. You are wrong about Personhood having been tried, it has not.
In fact, the Missouri case you are referring to is the Webster decision and it was not a Personhood law.
You are right that the Missouri law had no effect on abortion, but not because it was a personhood law (which it was not)but because incrementalist groups just like your website, NRLC et. al. insisted on what I like to call a neuter clause. Here's the language that the Supreme Court ruled on from Missouri:
"The statute, inter alia: (1) sets forth "findings" in its preamble that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing," §§ 1.205.1(1), (2), and requires that all state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with the same rights enjoyed by other persons, subject to the Federal Constitution and this Court's precedents, § 1.205.2;"
Yes, there is a hint of personhood, but it is conrtadicted internally by the neutering clause which makes the high sounding language of "providing unborn children with the same rights enjoyed by other persons, SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION AND THIS COURT'S PRECEDENT" In other words, children should have rights, but we won't stand up to the courts, who say children have no right to life.
In its decision the court states as much: "The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under Roe v. Wade."
Personhood has NEVER been argued in court, i.e. the truth has never gotten a chance, and yet we know as Bishop Olmsted stated in his masterful press conference today that "the truth shall set us free."
Mr. Ertelt, please stop campaigning to torpedo Personhood around the country. The American people do not need more RINO's they need the TRUTH.
December 23, 2010 at 7:07 am
HUMAN LIFE AND SOVEREIGN PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT
We holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men, as individual substance of a rational nature are created equal, not born equal, by their CREATOR, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Sovereign Personhood, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed through their sovereign personhood.
And further — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not expressly delegated to the United States, in congress assembled.
December 23, 2010 at 11:30 am
SOVEREIGN PERSONHOOD IN ABORTION AND ATHEISM
Therapeutic abortion is a miscarriage that requires surgery to save the life of the mother and the child. Therapeutic abortion intends to save both the life of the mother and the child. Procured abortion on demand intends only to kill the life of the sovereign person in the womb. Justice is predicated on intent. Roe v. Wade is miscarriage of Justice and fetal homicide.
Because atheism will rear its ugly head as soon as the mention of God as the source of man’s sovereign personhood is acknowledged, it must be said that the duplicity of the atheist is perjury in a court of law. The atheist seceded from the nation and forfeited his (her) rights when he refused his unalienable endowed rights of our Creator and the laws of nature and nature's God in The Declaration of Independence. The first time in history that sedition against the United States of America has been rewarded in the Supreme Court.
December 23, 2010 at 3:42 pm
HUMAN LIFE AND THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Sovereign personhood is begotten. Sovereign personhood constitutes the state. The Justice of the sovereign state is informed by the sovereign personhood of each and every citizen begotten, from the beginning of life, created, procreated and begotten.
December 23, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Thanks, Lawyer Anon:-), wonderful writing.
I guess my overwhelming reaction to the response of Mr. Ertelt, who I appreciate for his love for life, was the assumption that only the people who have aligned with the stance he supports are responsible for all of the movement on the pro-life front. There are many people who are working, praying, sacrificing for the end to abortion. I think acknowledging that is a good thing, not a political weakness.
January 7, 2011 at 4:37 am
I, for one, am totally FOR personhood! I can't wait to start charging my zygote rent! If it doesn't ante up, it's going on public assistance – and YOU'RE paying for it! 😀