►
Legislative philosophy
by ALL
Released February 26, 2009
American Life League's Statement of Principles declares, in part, that the survival of our nation depends upon securing for the preborn the guarantee of being born as honored citizens of a country that practices, under God, liberty and justice for all.
Consistent with this statement, ALL has maintained a legislative policy that seeks to advance the principle of personhood (i.e., that government must recognize that all humans, from their biological beginning until natural death, are endowed with the inalienable right to life). Indeed, ALL believes that there can be no "liberty and justice for all" if selected classes of human beings are denied their basic rights.
ALL has always held, and continues to hold, that at the very least, legislation that pertains to abortion, euthanasia, or any other life-related matter should not do harm to the personhood principle. If a proposal that contradicts or negates human personhood (particularly a proposal drafted by a pro-life group) is introduced in a legislature, the pro-life movement is ultimately farther away from its goal of legal recognition for the preborn's basic human rights than it would be had no measure been introduced.
It is ALL's firm conviction, then, that if the pro-life movement is to achieve legal recognition for all individuals' right to life, it must have credibility with the public and with legislators. And if the movement is to have credibility, pro-life legislation must be consistent with pro-life rhetoric and principles. The question of legislative policy is all the more crucial in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
In Casey, the Supreme Court upheld parts of a law that regulate the conditions to be met before abortion may take place in Pennsylvania. ALL draws two important conclusions from the decision.
First, every member of the Supreme Court continues to treat the preborn child as a nonperson under the Constitution. Second, the Casey court may, in the future, uphold other abortion regulations, but, most likely, only after such regulations have been subjected to protracted legal challenge and only so long as they are not too successful in deterring women from having their preborn children killed.
In the past, ALL has supported and assisted pro-life activists by developing model legislative proposals that regulated abortion, but did not, in their texts, contradict the personhood principle. The Casey decision has caused ALL to reevaluate and update this position.
Even though most regulatory-type proposals do not violate the personhood principle, they may implicitly suggest an unintended message: that killing a preborn child is acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. Pro-life promotion of such measures, then, can place the movement in the position of appearing to overlook the personhood of the preborn child and, worse, of appearing to ask the legislatures, courts, and public to do so as well.
The realm of public education on abortion is where the battle for people's hearts and minds will ultimately be won or lost. The regrettable, but inescapable, educational impact of regulatory-type bills is that they cloud or dilute the central message of the pro-life movement-that the preborn baby is a person who should be protected. As such, ALL concludes that measures regulating the practice of abortion will not appreciably advance the pro-life goal of achieving protection for all human life, born and preborn. Indeed, in the long run, pro-life support for such proposals may undercut the pro-life mission by diverting valuable, finite resources and energy away from efforts that promote the recognition of everyone's personhood.
This is not to say that regulatory-type proposals are without merit, only that ALL believes that these bills, especially when introduced as "what pro-lifers want," take the pro-life movement no closer to legal or social recognition of the preborn child. At this point in time, the pro-life message must be simple and clear-preborn babies are little girls and boys and killing them is always wrong.
ALL, then, will support and assist pro-life activists with model legislative proposals that directly affirm personhood or that indirectly affirm personhood by promoting concepts that are consistent with the principle that all human beings are entitled to legal recognition of their inalienable right to life. These proposals would include, but not be limited to, the following:
- abortion prohibitions with no exceptions;
- fetal homicide bills that do not specifically exclude abortion from coverage;
- prohibitions on wrongful life/wrongful birth lawsuits;
- conscience clauses for doctors, health care workers, facilities, and police officers that allow individuals or institutions to refuse to participate in abortion or abortion-related activity;
- prohibitions on the use of public funds/ facilities/employees for abortion, including bans on abortion coverage in public employees' health insurance plans, RU486 disinvestment from public pension funds, and other bans against taxpayer funding of abortion or abortion-related services;
- measures supporting crisis pregnancy centers that do not perform abortions and neither counsel nor refer for abortions; and
- bans on the transplantation of fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions.
ALL will not provide assistance in developing model legislation that directly contradicts the personhood principle. Such legislation would include any measure that specifically excludes from its protection or coverage certain classes of preborn babies (e.g., a bill with exceptions for babies conceived by rape or incest) or that attempts to create a pseudo-right for one person to consent to the death of another (e.g., a parental or informed consent bill).
ALL will, in certain circumstances, publicly oppose so-called pro-life proposals that, in their texts, contradict the truth that every human being is a person from the moment of fertilization and deserving of protection under the law.
As ALL advocates the total protection of all innocent human beings' right to life, it does not find cause to endorse any proposal that undercuts or fails to advance this position. In determining whether a measure undercuts or fails to advance the goal of personhood, both its direct and implied meanings will be weighed. It is clear that after more than 20 years of debate the pro-life movement must now work in a more direct manner for the children and their families and not become distracted by efforts that diminish the truth in any way.
However, while ALL will not publicly endorse "regulatory" bills as a way to achieve recognition for personhood, it will not consider opposing such measures unless, as stated above, their words specifically contradict the personhood principle.
As always, ALL stands ready to provide comment and analysis on any legislative proposal, pro-life or pro-abortion. Finally, ALL must address the constant barrage of abortion polling data and its impact on legislation. ALL believes that polling data are useful in that they may indicate how the prolife movement should focus its educational efforts in attempting to establish support for personhood. Further, survey results may be helpful in persuading "fence-sitting" politicians to back pro-life efforts. Yet, while polls may be helpful in shaping the style of the pro-life message, they should not determine its substance. Opinion surveys simply cannot be the basis for the formulation of policy. The truth that is at the heart of the prolife message comes from God; it is not dictated by poll results.
ALL stands ready to serve all individuals and existing pro-life groups, as well as fledgling efforts, on our way to a pro-life America. This statement of legislative policy is drafted as a guide for future endeavors.
|
