The North Dakota House of Representatives has passed the first personhood amendment in the United States, 57-35. Read more
Indiana
Each unique human life is created by God
The IndyStar published David A. Nealy's letter in defense of the unborn:
It is perhaps a sad indicator of the depth of the moral swamp into which we have descended that Marc Thiessen found it necessary to argue that a baby born alive after a failed abortion attempt should be spared execution (“After-birth abortion: Let’s agree this is murder,” April 11).
Lest one thinks Thiessen is making an unnecessary argument, he cites the recent gruesome statistic of at least seven born-alive infants allegedly murdered by Philadelphia abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Even more disturbing was his citing of two bioethicists who argue that if the attempted abortion was somehow “ethically permissible,” then the post-delivery murder of the infant should be also. In such cases they point out the term “infanticide” is inappropriate because the “moral status” of that particular infant is only comparable to that of a fetus. The utter moral depravity of their position goes beyond words.
The key issue here is, of course, the question of when a human life begins. Arbitrary and conflicting legal and moral arguments regarding this issue have swirled around ever since the horribly misguided 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in which nine unelected men decided that a “right to privacy” somehow justified the killing of a human being in the womb. It is almost impossible to understand how the highest court in the land could so easily trump the most fundamental right of all — the right to life — without seriously confronting the equally fundamental question of when human life actually begins.
Ultimately, the only way out of the “culture of death” is for this nation to accept the full implication of divine and natural law and accept that each unique human life is created by God at the moment of conception for reasons that only God fully understands. I salute constitutional amendment efforts under way in several states to recognize personhood at conception and urge citizens of this state to strongly support such efforts. Surely this nation — blessed beyond any others by God — must confront and put an end to the abominable stain of homicide in the womb.
Responding to Wesley J. Smith's critique of S.C. Personhood bill
Wesley J. Smith writes a misguided critique of a personhood law recently introduced in South Carolina. First, Mr. Smith shows confusion about the purpose of the bill. Personhood isn’t only a philosophical concept but a legal one. And it’s this second context, not the first, the bill addresses. After all, it is a proposed law, not a philosophical treatise. The only reason the word “person” is important legally is because the due process clause of the constitution only applies to persons.
Second, he states that personhood isn’t the issue but “humanhood”; being human is all that it takes to have rights. The writers of the bill agree with him. That’s why the bill makes legal personhood equivalent to humanhood. What else could possibly be meant by “The General Assembly finds a human being is a person at fertilization”?
Third, Mr. Smith suggests that because the bill “acknowledges all persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, it unconstitutionally establishes a religion in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. He’s wrong on a couple of counts. You can’t establish a religion if that religion has already been established. Consider the first line of the South Carolina constitution:
We, the people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.
It specifically states that liberties come from God. And it’s those God-endowed liberties that the South Carolina constitution is meant to protect. To put it in Mr. Smith’s terms, the South Carolina constitution “declare[s] that [it] is explicitly based on a religious belief, e.g. that ‘[liberties are] God-given’.”
Unlike the proposed bill, the South Carolina constitution doesn’t state that human beings are made in the image of God. Mr. Smith claims that it’s this imago dei claim that is unconstitutional because it isn’t shared by all religions. Consider the Indiana state constitution which states:
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.
And the North Carolina constitution states:
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights
Not all religions recognize a Creator and that human beings are created by that Creator. In Mr. Smith’s words, this recognition “unquestionably turn[s] the law into the establishment of religion, to be specific, Christian and Jewish, since the concept comes from Genesis 1:27.” I doubt the people living in Indiana or North Carolina realize they have a state religion.
On the contrary, merely professing in a preamble a non-universal religious view doesn’t establish a religion. If it did, professing a belief in God and that rights come from God, which the South Carolina constitution clearly does, would also be unconstitutional. Mr. Smith needs to explain how acknowledging that humans are created in God’s image establishes a religion.
In conclusion, Mr. Smith’s critique of the proposed bill doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The bill properly recognizes all human beings are persons. It’s recognition that humans are created in the image of God does not establish a religion. It’s a bill all people, including Mr. Smith, should support.
Recent Press Releases
Recent Blog Posts
Personhood in the News
