by Dr. Gregory J. Brannon
Abortion: the word itself stirs strong emotions in most people. Why is that? Is it be because it is the ending of a ‘mistake’ applied to an innocent life? The truth must be uncovered; ignorance is not bliss. I hope to dig deeper into this issue in a thoughtful and loving way, providing factual information proving all life is precious. Romans 12:9 says, “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” My love for the unborn is a sincere love, which I am privileged to be a part of nearly every day of my life. As a practicing OB/GYN for the past twenty-six years, I have been blessed to witness God’s miracle of conception and birth. I stand in awe of His amazing love and grace. I cling to the mercy He gives me each day.
The definition of abortion, according to Merriam-Webster is, “A medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause death to a fetus.” How have we culturally ignored the phrase “death to a fetus”? What is it which, has allowed this procedure to become so acceptable, causing the death of a ‘person’ is not considered anything more than eliminating an inconvenience? Historically, when the definition of words or interpretation of their meaning is changed to meet current views and/or prejudices, the original intent is diminished. There are moral absolutes. Altering their interpretation to fit the ‘current’ cultural mindset, ultimately leads to the destruction of the society.
Today, we are seeing the meaning of “person” change once again in our society. We have accepted abortion and the ‘cleaning’ of innocent life in the womb. But are we willing to go a step further and accept post-abortions? As far fetched as post birth abortions may sound to many of us, according to the Australian Journal of Medical Ethics, “If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practice an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet. There are two reasons which, taken together, justify this claim: The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus, that is, neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense. It is not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense.”
In the founding of the Great American Republic ‘experiment’ of self-governance, a conscious decision was made to declare that “all men are created equal”. Did it really mean that all men are created ‘equal’? Did it really mean each of us are born with inalienable rights of human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Sadly, the original authors of the constitution did not believe all men were created equal. Our founding fathers changed the meaning word: they changed human life, to property. We are still dealing with those ramifications because of that compromise.
During the mid-1930s, the German government passed a law, which considered Jewish people to be “sub-humans”. Therefore, they lost their ‘personhood’ within society at large. We all know what occurred next, the Holocaust. In German, the word “ubermensch” means “under man or sub-human”. This term was applied by the Nazi government to persons they deemed inferior such as the Jewish, Romanians, and Slavs. Untermensch became the law of the land. The Nuremberg Race Laws of 1935 were introduced into law in Germany. The people they felt were subhuman, were no longer afforded the rights of the citizens. The law was a direct result of the government replacing our Creator in the hearts and minds of the German citizenry.
The word ‘fetus’ actually means, “Viviparous” or “from life”. In Roman law, the term could be used to describe a child up to the age of adulthood. By changing the meaning of this word from being a person, to not being a person, detracts from what the word was initially meant to describe. When we change the meaning of a word to fit our needs, the results can and most times does, destruction to the most innocent among us.
The Declaration of Independence does not only declare to England that the thirteen original States should be free, but that all men are free. Although our government is secular, our Founders based this country on Judeo-Christian beliefs. The core belief being all men are created equal. Our government’s only role is to protect the rights of the individual so that each one of us has the opportunity to reach his or her highest potential.
Do we still hold dear to these foundational principal today? Are we truly a Christian country? Let the words of Fredrick Douglas reflect his belief: “Between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible differences; so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked…I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ; I, therefore, hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of this land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity.” Apply Douglas’ words in the context of a baby in the womb speaking.
Pure Christianity is a relationship between you and your Savior Jesus Christ. Christ does not force you to receive Him. Our government is not a theocracy. The government’s only legitimate role is to protect our inalienable rights. The first of which, and utmost is God’s nature and God’s natural law to life. Based on this principal, the only, only legitimate law of government is established in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Here lies the key to a legitimate role of government: “To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The consent is from you and me.
This is not a social issue, this is a moral, absolute issue. Changing the meaning of words does not negate the fact that the DNA of life occurs at the moment of conception. The fingerprint of all human life is cemented at that moment. Therefore, we must not waiver or compromise Wavering on these absolutes, as I have shown, has led to the horror of slavery and the tragedy of the Holocaust.
In 1850, The Fugitive Slave Law was passed, which stated any Caucasian could claim any black human being as a fugitive slave and take them back for bounty. Joshua Glover, a slave from Missouri, escaped to Wisconsin and said he wasn’t leaving. The Wisconsin legislature and the Wisconsin Supreme Court said he was a human being, therefore free. The United States Supreme Court unanimously said he, the property, must be returned to “his owner”. In other words, in the decision of the Supreme Court, the Federal Government is superior to the states. The State of Wisconsin said ‘no’, claiming states’ rights were superior. This led to the famous case of Ableman Booth in 1859. In this case, which was unanimously decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court decided it was superior to the State Court. This is a clear example of ‘usurpation’ of power by the Federal government over State sovereignty. There are no amendments giving the Supreme Court power to legislate and make law from the bench. The Supreme Court is bound to its duties as stated in the Constitution. A law is not a law if it’s unconstitutional and if it’s not based on God’s natural law. A human being -infant or slave is never private property. Therefore, all men (and women) regardless of age, color of skin or creed are created free.
Supreme Court Justice Brennen was known for a phrase during his time on the bench. It was called the “Strong Rule of 5”. He believed if he could persuade four other justices on the Supreme Court to agree with him, he could legislate from the bench. It is important to understand the role of the Supreme Court as described in Article III. The individual is sovereign. The individual formed a state. The state is superior to the Federal government. The federal government is the agent of the state, limited to perform eighteen certain functions described in Article I Section 8. The progressives of both parties have used the power of the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. This is judicial tyranny. This has happened because our Representatives in Congress, both in the House and Senate, the Presidents and most importantly, the state legislatures, have abdicated their roles to their Constitutional oath as described in Article VI.
Prior to the decision of Roe v. Wade, was the Griswold case in Connecticut in 1966. This case, which went to the Supreme Court, discussed the issue of birth control. Where in the Constitution is there any mention of birth control-it isn’t. In Roe v. Wade the court looked at that case and reviewed the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to find what’s called ‘penumbra’, and interpreted this to mean a person’s privacy can lead them to take an innocent life. The vote was seven to two. Surprisingly to many, five of the justices who voted for legalization of abortion were Republicans. Paraphrasing Justice Byron White’s dissent, he stated the Supreme Court should have never heard this case, as it has no Constitutional standing. This flies in the face of the notion we must vote for any Republican president, then hope and pray we have five people on the Supreme Court who will reverse this decision. Our founders did not give us a Constitution binding us to men’s wishes. They did just the opposite. What we are now witnessing in the Supreme Court and with other progressives is the rule of men. As John Adams said, “We are not a nation of men, we are a nation of laws”. It is either the rule of man or the rule of law, and our Founding Fathers built a nation based on God’s natural law.
In 1866 Congress passed a law called the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which recognized all men as being created by God. All men have the right to life, liberty, and property. Then in 1868, these became the words of the Fourteenth Amendment. To paraphrase Justice Miller in 1873: if you ever use the Fourteenth Amendment for any other reason, to manipulate for other causes then we detract and degrade what it was intended for: to recognize that all human beings are made in God’s image.
Let’s examine the science of DNA. After conception, there is cardiac activity at day 18, with a closed circuit system pumping heart by day 21.We know there is neural activity on the spinal cord approximately day twenty. We know every organ is developed by week nine and simply grows from that point forward. Again our life fingerprint begins at conception. Let’s err on the side of innocence. There was a sanctity of life bill in 1996 by Congressman Stockman from Texas that had no support. In 2007, Congressman Paul had a sanctity of life bill which had no support. In 2013 Congressman Broun from Georgia had a sanctity of life bill which had no support. So we can confidently say the Federal government is not going to protect the unborn. Nevertheless, State legislatures must hold the federal government accountable to Article I Section 8. Period. This is not a social issue. This is a moral issue that has a constitutional answer. The Fifth Amendment states no life will be taken without due process. How about the baby in the womb? Who is speaking for them?
Peter Singer is a bioethics professor at Princeton, an atheist who believes in abortion, admits that life begins at conception but continues, ‘who cares’ if it isn’t beneficial to society? That’s Plato’s definition of society, not ours. By changing the meaning of persons, fetuses, humans, we have followed a path to this destruction. Today’s science is clear. I have never had a woman come into my OB/GYN and say, “Let me see my fetus” during an ultra sound visit. They always say, “Can we me see my baby?” Or as my wife used to say when she was pregnant, “Can we visit our baby?”
Patrick Henry, George Mason and others warned us about corrupt men giving implied powers to the Constitution. The ratification notes are key to this. The sovereign the states did not grant the federal government to have unanimous power. James Iredell of North Carolina wrote in March 1788, “If Congress, under pretense of exercising the power delegated to them, should, in fact, by the exercise of any other power, usurp upon the rights of the different Legislatures, or any private citizens, the people will be exactly in the same situation as if there had been an express provision against such power…It would be an act of tyranny.” James Wilson suggested that that the Necessary and Proper Clause, “‘gives no more or other powers’ than those enumerated in Article I Section 8.” George Nicholas stated in the Virginia Ratifying Convention that, “The clause which was affectedly called the sweeping clause contained no new grant of power…if it had been added at the end of every one of the enumerated powers, instead of being inserted at the end of all, it would have been obvious to anyone that it was no augmentation of power…As it would grant no new power if inserted at the end of each clause, it could not when subjoined to the whole.”
Archibald McClain of North Carolina said, “If Congress should make a law beyond the powers and the spirit of the Constitution, should we not say to Congress, ‘You have no authority to make this law. There are limits beyond which you cannot go. You cannot exceed the power prescribed by the Constitution. You are amenable to us for your conduct. This act is unconstitutional. We will disregard it, and punish you for the attempt.’” The clear answer is in Article VI, clause 2 of the Constitution states that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and pursuance thereof. These great men still speak truth from beyond the tomb.
Today we have some national pro-life groups and politicians who use the love of life to manipulate the electorate for power and money. Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (NC-R) is a recent example of one politician that waivered on the pro-life issue. Although she was originally a sponsor for the bill, she ultimately withdrew her sponsorship (a very unusual move) and did not support the bill restricting abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy. The National Right to Life is an example of a pro-life group, which seems to place importance of power and money above the expense of innocent lives. According to their website, their mission statement is as follows: “The mission of National Right to Life is to protect and defend the most fundamental right of humankind, the right to life of every innocent human being from the beginning of life to natural passing. It would seem then they would endorse candidates that adhere to the same mission. Sadly, the National Right to Life has a history of publicly endorsing candidates that do make exceptions more than for the life of the mother. The 2014 senate race in NC is one such example. Redstate.com reported, “National Right to Life has endorsed Tillis…And yet, as the News & Observer reports, Tillis cannot be relied on to defend all human life. Under Tillis’s column on the abortion issue, it states: “Should be illegal except to save the life of the mother, and in cases of rape and incest.” The National Right to Life supports candidates that do not support all innocent life. Rape and incest are horrific events, but if there is a child conceived, the child is still innocent life.
One woman who has chosen to share her story is Jennifer Christie. Mrs. Jennifer Christy was raped while on a business trip. Soon after the rape, Jennifer found out that she was pregnant. Jennifer, along with her husband believed the life growing inside her was innocent and given to her by God. Their faith helped them walk through this difficult journey. She wrote of her experience in LiveActionNews.org. In an incredible example of God’s unconditional love, the Christie’s have chosen to have the baby and love and raise him. It was one of my greatest blessings to be their OB/GYN and walk beside them during this pregnancy. To God be the glory!
If an innocent baby in the womb is not worthy of personhood, what about-the disabled, the sick, the elderly. Can they also be grouped together as not qualify for human rights? The eugenics movement forced sterilization in our country, through the 1970s in some states. In the Buck v Bell (1927) decision, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., the Court ruled a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of negative eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives” from the gene pool. The goal was to prevent “three more generations of imbeciles”. Additionally, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was a huge proponent of the eugenics movement, who said, “Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated.” More than half of the abortions performed in America are on people of color, is her vision being fulfilled?
The answer is simple. State legislatures need to hold the federal government accountable to their functions: no more, no less. As a society we need to go back to our beliefs in the Declaration of Independence that says, “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness” We cannot be wavering like many did over slavery. We must be unwavering on moral principle. History is demanding an answer. The innocent, since 1973 are calling us. It’s time to look at the guidepost of history. Look at slavery, the holocaust, post birth abortions and compulsory sterilization. When we turn away from the true definition of a Created being, we weaken the meaning of life. Congress can pass the Sanctity of Life Bill and then the States and Congress initiate the amendment process (Article V) to make the law Constitutional; similar to the abolition of slavery.
Innocent life whether inside the womb or outside is guaranteed the right to life. The right to life is both morally and constitutionally protected. We must stand firm in this principle and never waiver.
“True liberty is our answer…may they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works”