The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
Arkansas
Arkansas bill introduced to stop funding for Planned Parenthood
.jpg)
Andrew DeMillo reports that Arkansas Senator Rapert supports Arkansas Senator Stubblefield’s bill to “cut all public funding to Planned Parenthood.” This is good news. Texas and Montana legislators have introduced similar measures.
SB 818 lays out some common sense legislative findings:
Public dollars awarded to qualifying entities may facilitate or subsidize directly or indirectly expenses or activities not directly related to those for which the funds were intended, including without limitation shared administrative costs, overhead, employee salaries, rent, utilities, and various other expenses;
Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874 says, "No public funds will be used to pay for any abortion, except to save the mother's life"; The direct or indirect subsidization or facilitation of abortion with funds distributed by the state constitutes paying for an abortion, and, therefore, conflicts with Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution of 1874;
Money is fungible. When the state gives money to Planned Parenthood and other abortionists for any purpose, it’s subsidizing the killing of babies. Senator Rapert’s summarizes the bill:
I do not like them utilizing funds, indirectly even, to support their efforts with abortion in our state.
Jill June, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, said:
For many Arkansas women we care for, we are the only health care provider they rely on every year for affordable care including well woman exams, lifesaving cancer screenings, contraception, and STD prevention.
Perhaps this is true. But luckily there’s a simple solution. Planned Parenthood could just stop killing babies. Then PP could have funding to do good things. If PP isn’t willing to stop killing the innocent, it tells us that PP cares more about baby-killing than about getting government funding for doing real healthcare. What a shocker!
A second (but far less noble) idea is that PP could separate their baby-killing business into a different corporation from their non-baby-killing business. The baby-killing corporation wouldn’t be eligible for funds while the “well woman exams, lifesaving cancer screenings” and so forth would be eligible. If PP isn’t willing to separate businesses, it indicates that PP cares more about baby-killing than it does about getting government funding for real healthcare. “It’s the big one, Elizabeth!”
Bravo, Senators Rapert and Stubblefield.
Grovelling before the Supreme Court
Recently, the Arkansas legislature, by overriding the Democrat Governor’s veto, put in place a ban on most abortions after 12 weeks. Governor Beebe didn’t use a good reason to veto the bill, such as the fact that the bill didn’t protect all 
babies. That’s a veto I would respect. No, he’s simply a pro-abort. Here's Beebe’s statement in support of his veto:
You know, you put your hand on the Bible and you're supposed to swear to uphold the constitution. It should mean something.
That’s a sad joke. Maybe, Governor Beebe can explain where either the Constitution or the Bible justifies baby-killing. He really meant:
You know, when you desecrate the Bible to swear to uphold the ideological inclinations of Harry Blackmun and the other baby-killing justices on the court, it should mean something.
It means something alright. It means the Governor is unworthy of his office and grossly negligent in his duty. But he’s not the only one. Last year, pro-abortion Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel refused to allow a personhood initiative to go forward because it conflicted with Roe v. Wade. Republican House Majority Leader Bruce Westerman said:
Not the governor, nor anyone else other than the courts, can determine if something is constitutional or unconstitutional. (Emphasis added)
Representative Bruce Westerman is glad to relinquish his duty to the courts.
Abraham Lincoln had a different view. In his first inaugural address, he said:
If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court... the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Pro-lifers hate women?
I couldn’t help but smile when I read the title of Lizzie Crocker’s pro-abortion screed: Does Arkansas Hate Women? [Pro-abortion] Doctors Decry New Radical Abortion Ban. If you outlaw abortion after 12 weeks, you hate women. Garance Franke-Ruta, at the Atlantic, points out that the new Arkansas law is in line with the baby-killing regulations in many European countries, including France. Une autre femme à la guillotine!
As Lizzie Crocker makes clear, pro-aborts (and leftists in general) love to use mindless ad hominem attacks such as “pro-lifers hate women” and “war on women”. It’s easier to malign the motives of pro-lifers rather than actually present a rational argument. But since evidence and rational argument support the protection of unborn babies, the repetition of mindless name-calling is the best tactic the pro-aborts have.
Ironically, these ad hominem attacks show that pro-aborts actually have a very low opinion of women. To see what I mean, you have to ask the question “Why is it hateful to outlaw abortion?” Somehow, if they can’t escape from the naturally designed purpose of their reproductive systems, women are degraded in some way. Which means that pro-aborts think that women are degraded by their natural capacity as women. Or put simply, women are degraded for being women.
Every time you hear pro-aborts chant “war on women” or other similar nonsense, they're only proudly displaying their own degrading view of women.
For more misogyny, see Ilyse Hogue: Women need abortion to be equal to men.
For the real war on women, see Killing girls and What do you think of sex-selection abortion?
12 week unborn baby model
Personhood Arkansas Refiles Pro-life Amendment
Little Rock, AR -- Personhood Arkansas has resubmitted a state constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to life of all human beings. Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel cited multiple reasons for rejecting the measure last week. The pro-life group has adopted several of the AG’s recommendations, and they are expecting a more favorable second opinion. If approved, organizers will have until July to collect the 73,800 signatures required for ballot access.
In his opinion, McDaniel argued that the measure’s popular name must include the effects of the amendment, a charge the proponents contest in an addendum to the resubmission. “Under the AG’s standard of review, the people would not be able to initiate a measure on “Freedom of Speech” because the popular name “Freedom of Speech” would not specifically describe political contributions, obscenity and pornography, artistic expression, the right to protest, etc.,” they wrote.
The phrase “every stage of development” was utilized to define the inclusive scope of the protections ensured by the amendment. McDaniel also claimed that the phrase was ambiguous.
Personhood advocates responded that “the term is used in dozens of state laws, several federal laws, and in the most commonly used medical and biological system of scientific classification of the human being, the Carnegie Stages of Human Development. For example, the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act applies to any ‘member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.’”
The proposal also clarifies that the “Amendment shall have no effect on medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life.” McDaniel questioned why the mother’s life was not specifically mentioned, supposing that the language was chosen to avoid “constitutional difficulties.” However, the amendment drafters point out that the language was carefully considered and chosen to include medical conditions such as twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome which can pose a threat to the life of children in utero.
“These are just a few examples of the errors Attorney General McDaniel made when issuing his opinion last week,” said Personhood Arkansas’ Preston Dunn. “Our hope is that the AG’s office will act in good faith by offering support to those of us who want the democratic initiative process to work for everyone including those who are gravely concerned about the 4,532 preborn children killed in our state in 2010.”
Arkansas’ Liberal Democrat Attorney General Blocks Personhood Amendment
Little Rock — Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel rejected a proposed state constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would recognize the personhood rights of every human being. The measure, proposed by Personhood Arkansas, guarantees that: “No innocent person shall be denied the right to life.” The term “person” applies “to all human beings, including the unborn, at every stage of their development.”
Among the various reasons McDaniel cited for rejecting the measure was that the phrase “every stage of development” was not specific in defining which human beings would enjoy the full protection of law.
This language is currently used to define the scope of legal protections in Arkansas’ Fetal Homicide Law, the Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the Federal Innocent Child Protection Act, and in 27 state laws throughout the nation.
“Clearly, this is activism masquerading as a charge of ambiguity,” explained Personhood Arkansas’ Preston Dunn. “The phrase is used by attorneys and embryologists alike to mean everyone.”
McDaniel took issue with the submitted popular name “Paramount Right to Life,” writing, “Your measure would not only deny public funding for any abortion…it would prohibit such abortions altogether….yet likewise fails to mention those restrictions in the popular name.”
“We can only conclude that the Attorney General is instructing us to include all of the effects of our proposal in its very name,” continued Dunn. “This alone should reveal the untenable requirements imposed upon us.”
Last July, McDaniel told a crowd: “This legislative session, the Attorney General’s office had to work harder at opposing legislation than we’ve had in probably all the other legislative sessions previously put together. I had 37 bills I had to go and oppose in the legislature, but I’m telling you that with the help of our legislative leaders, Democrats, our Governor, and our staff, you know how many of those 37 became law? Zero, not one of them.”
Curtis Coleman wrote in the The New South Conservative last April that “McDaniel [is] blatantly pro-abortion, as starkly illustrated by the fact that in almost every committee hearing in which a pro-life measure was discussed during the recently adjourned 88th Assembly of the Arkansas Legislature, a representative from the Attorney General’s office was on hand to oppose the bill.”
“McDaniel writes in his opinion that ‘this office has been given no authority to determine the merits of the proposal,’ and yet, he is acting as a one man, self-appointed Supreme Court,” said Dunn. “We are forced to challenge the federal tyranny that is Roe v. Wade. But to get there, we must deal with a biased and politically motivated Attorney General. This should serve as a wake-up call to every Arkansan who understands—and holds in high regard—the inalienable right to life.
Personhood Arkansas is refiling the amendment, adopting as many of the recommendations as possible, and preparing a lawsuit to challenge an anticipated second rejection.
Personhood Arkansas Files Language for 2012 Personhood Amendment
Little Rock, AR, 12/19/2011 — Personhood Arkansas has submitted amendment language to the state that would guarantee the right to life of every human being, no matter their age. The amendment reads: “No innocent person shall be denied the right to life. With respect to the right to life, the word “person” shall apply to all human beings, including the unborn, at every stage of their development.”
Similar to the renewed personhood effort in Colorado, the new language includes provisions specifying that the amendment would have no “effect on contraceptives or other methods of birth control that do not cause the death of a person” and “in vitro fertilization or other methods of assisted reproduction that do not cause the death of a person.” Planned Parenthood and the Amendment 26 opposition used the issues throughout the recent Mississippi campaign, confusing voters, and claiming both that contraceptive use and the practice of in vitro fertilization would be prohibited.
The Arkansas Personhood Amendment language also clarifies the pro-life position and the true effect of personhood in that mothers will continue to have access to life saving medical treatments. “This Amendment shall have no effect on medical treatment for life threatening physical conditions intended to preserve life,” it reads.
“We witnessed the misinformation tactics used by those who would continue the abortion carnage. Personhood Arkansas has submitted language that is concise and effective in our goals, and it addresses important concerns Arkansas voters may have,” said Personhood Arkansas Director Preston Dunn, Jr. “I am confident that the taking of some 4,532 innocent unborn children’s lives last year is not what the people of Arkansas want for our great state, and when the time comes, Arkansans will take a stand for life.”
Personhood Arkansas must submit the 78,133 signatures by July to reach the 2012 ballot.
“The people of Arkansas are inspired to declare, by love and by law, that every human being is a person and deserving of all of the rights afforded to ‘all men,’ said Keith Mason, President of Personhood USA. “This amendment is an opportunity for Arkansas to make history by affirming the basic dignity and the most fundamental of all rights of all people.”
Recent Press Releases
Recent Blog Posts
Personhood in the News
