You have heard the mantra over and over again from your conservative elected leaders and pro-life groups. Life begins at conception and continues until natural death. They tell you they are against abortion and will pursue any lawful means to end the killing of innocent children. Many are asking for your support and of course money as they will work to end this scourge on society. What if they held a policy position that perpetuates abortion?
David Barton said, and I paraphrase… if our leaders do not get the life question right, they will in the end neither protect life or liberty.
Many so-called conservative leaders say they will do anything lawfully possible to protect life (Conserve Life). But what if they hold a policy position that is opposite of that last statement? If somebody holds a policy position that allows for the continuation of abortion, would you say that is a pro-abortion policy position? If you can pursue a lawful means to end abortion and protect all life from conception to natural death, would you use it? What if this policy position helped perpetuate the killing of 65 million children? What if it helped usher in this culture of death, assisted suicide and euthanasia? If a person holds to a policy position that allows for the killing of innocent life and does not conserve it, would you call them a conservative? Should you trust someone if on one hand they say they would do anything to protect life and then take a policy position that perpetuates abortion?
Many consider Phyllis Schlafly a conservative heroin. In my opinion, she held a policy position that is pro-choice and helped perpetuate abortion. Did she hold a policy position that Article V of the constitution that allowed for a convention of states for any reason was too dangerous? These are her words in her 1989 testimony before the Oregon State legislator.
“I’ve always been against it. Even when in the mid-1970s the pro-lifers made a big effort to call a Con Con and they ended up getting nineteen states and it was frankly very difficult to oppose a lot of my pro-life friends then. I felt the Con Con was the wrong way to go.” And she also said this. “There is no way to disinvite the pro-life activists from a Constitutional Convention. They persuaded nineteen states to pass Con Con resolutions for a Human Life Amendment and they have a track record of voting for candidates on the abortion issue regardless of any other factor. Even if the Con-Con limited its agenda to the federal budget could anybody seriously argue that abortion is not germane to that?”
Many of her arguments against a convention of states were conjured up by the left in the early nineteen sixties to counter the progression of what was called the Liberty amendments supported by the John Birch Society and the use of an Article V convention of states as a method to get them enacted. Based on Phyllis Schlafly’s Wikipedia page she was part of JBS and resigned in 1964. The reason given was she felt that it would damage the Barry Goldwater campaign and her book sales. An article on Ms. Schlafly claimed that she continued as secret member of the John Birch Society. It’s revealing to me that Ms. Schlafly should have been familiar with the left’s anti-convention of states arguments that were put forth during the early nineteen sixties.
What if the campaign against the use of a convention of states was and is more about never allowing a convention of states for any reason because 19 states after Roe V Wade advanced resolutions for a right-to-life amendment?
If JBS was for the use of a convention of states in the nineteen sixties and came out against it after Roe V Wade it makes me wonder, why? What had changed? Could it have been that 19 states had exercised their constitutional authority to advance a Right to Life Amendment?
How do we reconcile what Ms. Schlafly said “There is no way to disinvite the pro-life activists from a Constitutional Convention. “They persuaded nineteen states to pass Con Con resolutions for a Human Life Amendment and they have a track record of voting for candidates on the abortion issue regardless of any other factor.”
If life is precious and we are to hold that in high esteem are the Right to Life Amendment activist the true conservative heroes? We should recognize they were willing to risk everything to save one of these 65 million innocent lives lost since Roe V Wade. The fear used to dissuade them from their effort was they could lose the constitution. What is your number, how many lives are you willing to let be killed to hold onto your fear, win the next election, keep the status quo? It makes no sense to me that people who claim to be conservatives would oppose a Right to Life Amendment.
Some so-called conservative organizations did and do continue this campaign against a convention of states and a right-to-life amendment. They were instrumental in rescinding seven Right to Life Applications in state legislatures. It might be hard for you to swallow this, but they use Chief Justice Waren Burger whose court gave us Roe V Wade as their constitutional authority as to why we should fear a convention of states. Many claim to be pro-life, but do their actions and policy positions reveal that they are pro-choice? I ask this… Is the fear of using Article V of the constitution any less of a pro-choice position than an expectant mother who has fears and uncertainty about the future and makes a choice to abort her child. Both positions are based on fear and hardships at the time of choice.
The difference is they want us to accept their pro-choice fear as morally acceptable as they tell us the expecting mother’s choice is not. Both pro-choice positions end with the same result the killing of innocent children. The mother only killed one, our fear and inaction killed 65 million and counting. To borrow a line from a movie, we are the same kind of different as the Pro-abortion/Pro-choice people. These are both Pro-choice positions based on fear! Do not both fears come from the father of lies? If not show me where God says it is ok to be fearful and allow for the killing our innocent neighbors.
Do we truly believe our rights derive from God and are inalienable? Is Life preeminent to preserve? So, if we take a policy position that places the constitution, fear of the law, or the next election above life, is not the constitution our idol and government our god? Does the godless left also place the government as their god? We often decry that they do, but are we worshiping the same god? Is this fear of the constitution and the Convention of states from the father of lies or from God? 2 Timothy 1:7 “ For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” Could it be that we have pursued earthy methods such as elect better leaders, the next election cycle, the next elected leader to be our savior. What if we just believed that the duty is ours to arrest the evil in our day and pursued the policies that would arrest that evil and left the results up to God? Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no one is pursuing but the righteous are bold as a lion. Is the evil we see today and lament about a result of following the fear and the father of lies instead of God? Psalm 94:23 “He has brought back their wickedness upon them and will destroy them in their evil; The Lord our God will destroy them.”. Has the rise of evil in our nation heightened since we rescinded 7 right to life amendments? It seems to me we are on the path to be given over to destruction as other nations were, that allowed the sacrifice of their neighbors for the sake of their idols. Proverbs 28:12 When the righteous triumph, there is great glory, but when the wicked rise, men hide themselves. We might want to assign blame for this to the nine Supreme Court Justices or even our elected leaders. We need to recognize that God gave us our government based on We the People. God always calls his people to act against evil and will hold us and our nation to account for our inaction. The states and the people have always had the authority to stop the killing of innocent life. We must look at the log in our eye first and hold ourselves to account for our heart. I for one believe a policy position that says an Article V Convention of States is too dangerous to use to protect Life, Liberty, and Property is not from God and is a murderous policy position. I refuse to succumb to the fear and the father of lies. I chose to believe this from God’s word. Mathew 19:26 But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
