Last week on “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins invited anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist and birther Frank Gaffney to discuss the so-called “no-go zones” in Europe, neighborhoods that anti-Muslim activists claim are run according to Sharia law and remain off-limits to police and governmental authority.
Perkins asked Gaffney if President Obama is aiding terrorists because he won’t blame terrorist attacks on Islam, prompting Gaffney to say that Obama is a Sharia law proponent who sounds just like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the leaders of Boko Haram.
“When the president says at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,’ we could’ve found those words coming out of the mouths of Osama bin Laden, or Mullah Omar of the Taliban, or the leaders of Boko Haram or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Islamic State,” Gaffney said. “This is the doctrine of Sharia and its blasphemy codes. So it not only gives people latitude to say, ‘The president is saying we mustn’t exercise our freedom of speech or maybe we should give it up altogether lest it offend these folks.’ It is also, and this is really in a way much worse, emboldening our enemies, who when they see this behavior, they think we’re submitting to them.”
Gaffney, of course, is leaving out the fact Obama’s 2012 UN speech was all about the importance of the freedom of speech and opposition to blasphemy laws:
Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day and I will always defend their right to do so.
Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.
We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
Gaffney also conveniently left out the sentence immediately following the president’s remark on “those who slander the prophet of Islam”: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”
On his radio program today, Glenn Beck announced that he and his co-host Pat Gray will be taking their families on vacation to Europe this summer so that their kids can see England, France, Germany and Greece before they are all destroyed when the world goes up in flames in the coming years.
"Pat and I truly believe that we are in the 1930s," Beck explained. "I don't know where, but we're in the 1930s — maybe its '39, maybe it's '35, I don't know, but history is repeating itself."
Beck went on to say that if people did not travel to Europe before World War II broke out, they were most likely unable to travel there again until the 1950s, by which point many great landmarks had been destroyed by the war and everything was in the process of being rebuilt.
"Because of what is happening, I believe London, France, Germany, Greece; I believe these things could be destroyed in what is coming," he warned, saying that he wants his family to see places like Notre Dame Cathedral before Islamic radicals blow it up and France is no longer a free nation:
On Friday, the night before Gov. Bobby Jindal's "The Response" prayer rally, Rachel Maddow took a look at the "questionable characters" who were helping him organize and promote the event, prompting Jindal to send a statement to Maddow insisting that his rally would be "a prayer event, not a political rally."
Participants in the rally, of course, did not particularly see it that way. In addition to a segment dedicated to praying for an end to legal abortion in America, several speakers noted how getting right-wing Christians elected to public office was key to bringing reformation and revival to America.
Pastor Jim Garlow, who spoke right before Jindal shared his personal testimony and call for revival, spent most of his time railing against IRS regulations that prohibit pastors from endorsing political candidates from their tax-exempt pulpits. Garlow closed out his remarks by suggesting that America may be in the midst of another great religious revival, judging by the number of members of Congress "who really know Christ as Savior."
"We have more freshman members of the House of Representatives who understand biblical truth than we have had for decades," Garlow proclaimed excitedly, noting that the same thing is happening in state legislative chambers all over the nation.
"We are a generation that has a vision of reformation," he said. "We can see it. We can hear the sounds of it and in our lifetimes, we are going to experience it. Let's join together in prayer for the great reformation. Jesus as king of our land!"
Later in the event, Pastor Jacob Aranza of Our Savior's Church in Lafayette, Louisiana, prayed explicitly for conservative Christians to run for and win political office. Aranza even brought three members of his own church who had all been elected to public office out onto the stage as examples, including Louisiana state Sen. Jonathan Perry, who audibly heard the voice of God tell him to run for office "while giving the largest tithe check he'd ever given" to Aranza's church.
"Father, today we know that you are raising up men and women of God across this nation," Aranza prayed. "And Father now, in the name of Jesus, we pray for the elected officials. We pray for every elected city councilman, we pray for mayors. We pray for senators. We pray for state representatives. We pray for the marshals, the sheriffs, the school board officials. Lord, we ask you in the name of Jesus, send revival to every elected official we have, oh God. We know that when revival is when you get so sick of being misrepresented that you just show up yourself. Show up in every elected official, Lord, all throughout our state, may the glory of God come ... Maybe it be known because now righteous leaders are in authority and when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice!"
Don Feder of the World Congress of Families is pretty sure that “Barack Hussein Obama is perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Jews since the destruction of the Second Temple” in 70 AD. This apparently means that, according to Feder, the Obama presidency has been worse for the Jewish people than such atrocities as the Holocaust and the Pogroms.
“Our president is a world-class crescent-kisser,” Feder writes. “In his State of the Union address – between striking Mussolini-like poses and lying about employment – the president disclosed that as part of the ‘partnership’ between America and Islam (we buy their oil, they kill us), ‘I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.’ Is it a stereotype if it's true?” (The remark was actually delivered in a 2009 speech in Cairo.)
After falsely claiming that Obama “studied in a madrassa,” Feder writes that “the president is anti-Americanism incarnate.”
Barack Hussein Obama is perhaps the greatest tragedy to befall the Jews since the destruction of the Second Temple. He's trying to force Israel into a suicidal pact with the gentle folk of Hamas and Fatah. Every time Palestinian terrorists (Hamas and Fatah) kill more Jews, he calls for calm on both sides – as if Israel was doing anything but defending itself.
His hatred of Netanyahu borders on the pathological. When Boehner recently invited the Israeli Prime Minister to address the House of Representatives, Obama threw one of his hissy fits, letting it be known that Bibi would not be asked to stop at the White House. That must be a terrible blow for the Prime Minister. Now, the administration is threatening to retaliate against Bibi. Where Churchill was defiant, Obama is petulant.
Our president is a world-class crescent-kisser. He'll periodically tell us how it's his duty to defend Islam from scurrilous attacks. I must have missed that in Constitutional Law class.
In his State of the Union address – between striking Mussolini-like poses and lying about employment – the president disclosed that as part of the "partnership" between America and Islam (we buy their oil, they kill us), "I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear." Is it a stereotype if it's true?
Barack may have studied in a madrassa, but Winston experienced the business end of the scimitar. In "The River War," the future Prime Minister wrote: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries. Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog," its effects include "improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce" and a "degraded sensualism that deprives this life of grace and refinement."
Churchill lived in the real world. Obama runs the religion-of-peace ride in Multicultural Land.
Churchill loved America. Obama loathes the nation he was twice elected to lead. From his rejection of American exceptionalism to equating the police shooting in Ferguson to ISIL's murder of captives (when speaking at the UN), the president is anti-Americanism incarnate.
Conservative pundit Betsy McCaughey, inventor of the Obamacare "death panels" rumor, visited the Newsmax show “America’s Forum” today to urge listeners to vaccinate their children in the wake of a measles outbreak in California that health officials have pinned on people who refuse to be vaccinated. But it’s not just anti-vaxxers who are to blame for the outbreak, McCaughey said. She also blamed the measles outbreak on immigrants, saying that “sadly our federal government is not taking any responsibility at all for preventing people who are carrying measles from entering the country.”
J.D. Hayworth, the former Arizona congressman and host of “America’s Forum,” was eager to blame the measles outbreak on immigrants as well, particularly the Central American children who fled to the southern border earlier this year who, as far as we know, have absolutely no connection to the measles outbreak that started at Disneyland. (In fact, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, where most of the children came from, have higher measles vaccination rates than the U.S.)
“You’re just talking about legal immigration, and you take a look at the last year and the influx of juveniles from Central America and obviously we have problems, so there are a couple of reasons at work,” Hayworth said.
“So, Betsy, you’re telling us that part of it is an anti-vaccine movement, but the other part is illegal immigration,” he prompted.
“It’s immigration of all sorts,” McCaughey said, citing the case of unvaccinated Amish missionaries (U.S. citizens) from Ohio who carried the disease back from the Philippines and a outbreak in Houston in the 1990s that reportedly stemmed from immigrants from Mexico but was worsened by low vaccination rates.
“We’re allowing it to be carried into the country and that’s wrong,” she said.
There is a long tradition of the anti-immigrant movement of attempting to blame disease outbreaks on immigrants, which was revived in force by the right-wing media in connection to the crisis at the border this summer. Back in August, Hayworth memorably had his fearmongering about child immigrants carrying diseases shut down by an infectious disease expert, but he doesn’t seem to have learned anything from the experience.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal skipped an Iowa stage crowded with Republican presidential wannabes on Saturday so he could host a prayer rally on the campus of Louisiana State University. Jindal and others have mischaracterized objections to the rally, suggesting that its critics were somehow out to silence people of faith. So let’s be clear about the real issue: Bobby Jindal used the power and prestige of his office to promote an event backed by some of the nation’s most religiously divisive and stridently anti-gay activists. And in a bid to boost his own political future, he sent a clear message of support for the Christian-nation views of the event’s extremist organizers.
Christians Only, Please
Let’s start with the invitation, sent on Jindal’s official state letterhead. “We are in need of spiritual and transforming revival,” he wrote, “if we are to recapture the vision of our early leaders who signed on the Mayflower, ‘In the name of God and for the advancement of the Christian faith.’” Leadership to solve the country’s problems “will not come from a politician or a movement for social change,” he wrote in this time of civil rights movement anniversaries. So how will we solve our problems? “Jesus Christ, Son of God and the Lord of Life, is America’s only hope.” In a separate letter he wrote to the other 49 governors inviting them to his rally to pray for “spiritual revival” and “heaven’s intervention” over the country. “There will only be one name lifted up that day – Jesus!”
What does all this suggest to non-Christian Americans (including non-Christian governors) about how Jindal views their contributions? Jindal’s letters reflect the attitudes of rally organizer David Lane, a political strategist who believes America was founded by and for Christians. The event was paid for by the American Family Association, whose chief spokesman, radio host Bryan Fischer, believes the First Amendment’s religious liberty protections apply only to Christians.
The rally was also a showcase for the dominionist views of self-proclaimed “apostles” who promoted and spearheaded the event. One of those “apostles” was the event’s emcee. Doug Stringer has called the 9/11 attacks “a wake-up call” that happened because God was not around to defend America due to abortion, homosexuality, and kicking God out of public schools. While introducing Jindal, Stringer made a brief mention to “Seven Mountains” theology, which states that all the “mountains” in society – arenas like business, entertainment, and government – must be led by the right kind of Christian. A later speaker, Gene Mills of the Louisiana Family Forum, spent more time on the “Seven Mountains.” Mills said these spheres of influence belong to God, but are currently occupied by the “enemy.” They therefore need to be evangelized and “occupied by the body of Christ.”
Not Political? Not Credible
Jindal and organizer David Lane declared, unbelievably, that the rally was not political. Lane is a self-described political strategist who works to turn conservative evangelical churches into voter turnout machines for right-wing candidates and causes. Lane is trying to get 1,000 conservative evangelical pastors to run for public office, and he held a recruiting session the day before the prayer rally. Jindal and Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma were among the speakers. Another example of the disconnect between rhetoric and reality: Stringer made the claim that the rally was not meant to lift up any politicians while he was standing in front of a huge screen featuring a quote from Bobby Jindal.
The “not political” claim was hard to take seriously given the amount of time devoted to making abortion illegal and declarations that what will tip the scales will be the “the voice of the church in the voting booth.” Jim Garlow, who led church organizing for California’s anti-gay Proposition 8, and who believes the marriage equality movement is demonic, dropped all “nonpolitical” pretense, railing against marriage equality and IRS regulations that restrict the involvement of churches in electoral politics.
Opponents = Enemies
One of the biggest problems with treating politics as spiritual warfare is that you turn your political opponents into spiritual enemies. People who disagree with you on public policy issues are not just wrong, but evil, or even satanic. That makes it pretty hard to work together or find compromise.
In daily prayer calls leading up to the rally, organizers prayed for God to forgive students who were organizing protests, as if disagreeing with Bobby Jindal were a sin – or a form of anti-Christian persecution. “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” prayed call leaders, comparing their pleas to Jesus asking God to forgive those who crucified him, and Saint Stephen asking for mercy for those who were stoning him to death. On one call, a prayer leader decreed a “no-go zone for demons” over the sports arena where the event was to be held. At the rally, one speaker talked of storming the gates of Hell. Bishop Harry Jackson finished his remarks by leading the crowd in a chant he has used at anti-gay rallies: “Let God arise and his enemies be scattered!”
Jindal Unplugged, Unhinged, and Unapologetic
Jindal seems to have decided that his best chance in a crowded Republican field is to plant himself at the far right of an already far-right group. In the days leading up to the rally, he drew criticism for comments denigrating Muslims and for repeating bogus charges about Muslim “no-go zones” that Fox News had already apologized for spreading. During a radio interview a few days before the rally, Jindal said liberals pretend that jihadist terrorism isn’t happening and pretend “it’s a good thing to kill journalists, to kill teenagers for watching soccer, to kill over 150 schoolchildren, to treat women as second-class citizens…” He decried political incorrectness and multiculturalism and said of immigrants who do not embrace American exceptionalism, “that’s not immigration, that’s invasion.”
On “This Week” on Sunday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos noted that Jindal had declared at his prayer rally that “on the last page, our God wins,” and asked him if that was appropriate in a religiously diverse country. Jindal praised religious liberty but ducked the question.
On the same show, Jindal said he would back a push for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to allow states to discriminate against same-sex couples, all while saying “I am not for discrimination against anybody.” (Jindal describes himself as an “evangelical Catholic,” and his contradictory rhetoric parallels the language of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which says it opposes “unjust discrimination” against gay people, but defines the term “unjust discrimination” in a way that applies only to those people with “same-sex attraction” who remain celibate.)
Jindal has also promoted far-right policies as governor. As Brian has noted:
Jindal has reached out to the party’s increasingly extreme base by undermining the teaching of evolution in public schools; promoting wild conspiracy theories about Common Core, an effort to adjust school standards that he supported before it became the target of the Tea Party’s fury; and hyping the purported persecution of Christians in America, specifically citing the plight of Christians with reality television shows.
Jindal’s rally was not an original idea. In fact Jindal’s “Response” recycled materials and themes from a similar event that Texas Gov. Rick Perry held in 2011 to launch his presidential bid. Here’s what I wrote about Perry’s event, which applies equally well to Jindal’s – not surprising since both were organized by the same groups of extremists:
Organizers argued (unconvincingly) that "The Response" was about prayer, not politics. But groups like the American Family Association (AFA), which paid for the rally and its webcast…are not designed to win souls but to change American law and culture through grassroots organizing and political power-building. They have a corrosive effect on our political culture by promoting religious bigotry and anti-gay extremism, by claiming that the United States was meant to be a Christian nation, and by fostering resentment among conservative evangelicals with repeated false assertions that liberal elites are out to destroy religious liberty and silence conservative religious voices.
Jindal, of course, has the right to talk about his faith. But it is wrong for him to use his public office to proselytize and denigrate the faith of others. Teaming up with anti-gay extremists and Christian-nation advocates gives them credibility they do not deserve. His actions speak volumes about his judgment, values, and commitment to religious pluralism and equality under the law.
This is the third post in a RWW series on the reemergence of the fetal personhood movement and what it means for the future of abortion rights in the U.S.
Part 1: The Personhood Movement: Where It Comes From And What It Means For The Future Of Choice
Part 2: The Personhood Movement: Internal Battles Go Public
Part 4: The Personhood Movement: Regrouping After Defeat
As we have detailed in previous posts in this series, ever since the anti-choice movement rose to prominence in the wake of Roe v. Wade, it has been divided over how to go about repealing Roe and recriminalizing abortion in the U.S.
Groups like Americans United for Life (AUL) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) have achieved great success in pushing states to adopt incremental measures targeting abortion providers in the name of protecting women’s health and in advocating for national policies — such as the 2003 “partial-birth” abortion ban and the 20-week abortion ban currently being considered by Congress — that attempt to undermine the legal reasoning in Roe by targeting a small segment of abortion procedures.
But the anti-choice personhood movement believes that the incremental strategy is doing too little to end legal abortion. They believe they have a better plan.
The personhood movement argues that small, incremental legal victories cutting off access to abortion will never achieve the ultimate goal of completely criminalizing the procedure — in part because those measures fail to make a moral argument on behalf of the humanity of the fertilized egg and fetus.
At the founding convention of the Personhood Alliance late last year, the chief of staff to Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, notorious for his legal fight over a Ten Commandment monument he placed in the courthouse rotunda, discussed an alternate legal strategy to end abortion rights. As Nina Martin has outlined in The New Republic, Moore’s protégé and colleague Justice Tom Parker has been carefully laying out a legal framework to overturn Roe, not by constitutional amendment, but by the legal redefinition of what it means to be a person protected by the law.
Parker, with Moore’s backing, has been building a body of jurisprudence that offers a blueprint for a personhood victory in the courts. In doing so, he’s drawn the attention and praise of anti-choice activists; Liberty Counsel, a right-wing legal group, has called him a “modern-day Wilberforce.”
Since efforts to overturn Roe by passing a Human Life Amendment or a legislative alternative faltered in Congress in the 1970s and 1980s, personhood advocates have focused on the states, passing legislation giving limited rights to fetuses as separate entities from pregnant women. Since 1986, 38 states have passed “fetal homicide” laws identifying fetuses at some or all stages of development as separate victims of crime and in 2004 Congress passed a similar law covering federal crimes. Similarly, in 18 states substance abuse during pregnancy is legally considered child abuse. In Alabama last year, Republicans passed a law allowing judges to appoint lawyers for fetuses. As Elizabeth Nash, senior state issues associate at the Guttmacher Institute, put it in an interview, “all of that is about trying to build up a legal case that personhood starts at fertilization.”
Personhood USA’s 2014 attempt to insert personhood language into Colorado law drew on this legal history, specifically limiting its new definition of personhood to the Colorado criminal code and Colorado Wrongful Death Act. But the proposal was nonetheless widely recognized as an attempt to ban abortion, or at least to set up a legal battle challenging Roe. In fact, Colorado had already passed laws imposing extra penalties for crimes against pregnant women, the purported purpose of the personhood amendment. “They are changing the tone, they are changing the language, they are changing the messaging to try to win,” Nash said.
Parker has chronicled laws treating fetuses as full-fledged humans in certain cases to argue that “[t]oday, the only major area in which unborn children are denied legal protection is abortion, and that denial is only because of Roe.” He has urged the Supreme Court to address the issue at the next chance it gets.
Parker and Moore’s strategy relies on what the personhood movement’s proponents believe is a loophole in Roe v. Wade that would allow anti-abortion advocates to effectively undo the decision without a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court friendlier to their cause. In Roe, the Justices rejected the idea of fetal personhood. Justice Blackmun wrote in his majority opinion that “no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” noting, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses...for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
A federal bill that currently has 132 cosponsors in the House and 21 in the Senate takes aim at this supposed loophole in Roe, simply declaring that “the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being," which includes “each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.”
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chief sponsor of the Senate bill, signed a fundraising email for the pro-personhood National Pro-Life Alliance in November, arguing that his was the strategy that would work:
The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children 'persons' under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand 'collapses.'
Alabama’s Supreme Court is the most prominent court to give a serious hearing to the personhood strategy, long considered by even some in the anti-choice movement to be a crackpot theory and a potential political and legal disaster. As recently as 2009, Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel at Americans United for Life, wrote in the National Review that the so-called “personhood loophole” was an “urban legend” and those pursuing it were “heading toward a brick wall.” Forsythe argued that in 1992 Casey decision, the Supreme Court had shifted the abortion debate from the personhood of fetuses to the rights of women, and that that was therefore the ground that the anti-choice movement should be playing on. “The real challenge for pro-lifers in 2009 is to effectively address the assumption that abortion is good for women,” he wrote, presaging AUL’s revamped woman-focused messaging.
Even more alarming to the personhood strategy’s detractors in the anti-choice movement is the possibility that a personhood challenge to Roe could create the opportunity for a Supreme Court ruling that would actually strengthen constitutional protections for abortion rights. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for instance, has said that she believes abortion rights should be secured under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, making the issue more clearly about the rights of women. In 2010, Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) wrote, “If a personhood amendment comes before this court, a new and terrifying decision may put the pro-life movement back a quarter century or more.”
In 2007, as the anti-choice movement’s schism over a ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortion was gaining national attention, Georgia Right to Life, which was at the the state affiliate of NRLC, worked with legislators to introduce a state constitutional amendment defining a “person” under state law as “including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization.”
Although the Georgia amendment was based on language originally drafted as a federal constitutional amendment by NRLC, NRLC’s chief counsel James Bopp, Jr. tried to shut it down. In a lengthy and frank memo to his fellow anti-choice activists, Bopp contended that such an amendment would be immediately struck down in federal courts and, if it made it to the Supreme Court, could give the court’s majority the opportunity to rewrite Roe in the way favored by Ginsburg. The state-level personhood strategy, he cautioned, was “presently doomed to expansive failure.”
Instead, Bopp said, the anti-choice movement should continue its incremental strategy, which was succeeding in curtailing access to abortion while keeping the issue in the public eye. He wrote that the “partial-birth” abortion law had been a successful example of this strategy because it “forced the pro-abortion camp to publicly defend a particularly visible and gruesome practice.” Acknowledging that “most pro-lifers” believe that abortion should only be available to save the life of a pregnant woman, he warned that absolutist, no-exceptions approaches like personhood were both legally unwise and poor public relations:
By contrast, the pro-life movement must at present avoid fighting on the more difficult terrain of its own position, namely arguing that abortion should not be available in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and harm to the mother. While restricting abortion in these situations is morally defensible, public opinion polls show that popular support for the pro-life side drops off dramatically when these “hard” cases are the topic. And while most pro-lifers believe that a consistent pro-life position requires permitting abortion in only the rare circumstances where it is necessary to save the life of the mother, some pro-lifers believe that there should not even be an exception to preserve the life of the mother. Other pro-lifers advocate exceptions for rape or incest. This is an important debate to have, and we should be ready to convince the public of the need for few, if any, exceptions to laws prohibiting abortion when such laws can be upheld. However, since that is currently not the case, such a debate is premature and would undermine public support for the pro-life position.
Responding to Bopp’s memo, the conservative Thomas More Law Center, which drafted the Georgia amendment, argued that the incremental strategy had taken too long and done too little and that “after 34 years of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, it is time to rethink pro-life strategy.”
“[T]he central holding of Roe v. Wade remains the primary obstacle to any meaningful pro-life initiative that seeks to end abortion,” wrote Thomas More attorney Robert J. Muise. “To remove this obstacle, a case must be presented to the United States Supreme Court that challenges the central premise of Roe — that the unborn is not a person within the meaning of the law.”
If personhood laws were to succeed in the courts, the legal implications would be immense and unpredictable.
The ambiguous wording of personhood measures has led to concerns that they could be interpreted to outlaw oral contraception, IUDs and in-vitro fertilization. But birth control is not the only issue. As the National Advocates for Pregnant Women’s Lynn Paltrow and Fordham sociologist Jeanne Flavin have documented, laws granting legal rights to fetuses outside the context of abortion have led to hundreds of cases of pregnant women being arrested or otherwise apprehended after suffering miscarriages or for alleged drug and alcohol use deemed to be harmful to the fetus.
In countries that completely criminalize abortion — the goal of the “pro-life” movement in the U.S. — pregnant woman can find themselves in terrifying situations: recently in El Salvador, a woman was sentenced to 30 years in prison for murder after suffering a miscarriage.
As Paltrow told Newsweek in 2012, “There’s no way to give embryos constitutional personhood without subtracting women from the community of constitutional persons.”
By redefining what it means to be a person under the law, personhood measures could also have a broad legal impact on issues unrelated to reproductive rights, threatening to upend everything from inheritance law to census results. In 2014, the Colorado Bar Association opposed the state’s personhood ballot measure, warning that the vaguely worded measure would have “potentially serious, unintended and unknown consequences for Colorado lawyers…From areas of Family Law to Probate Law to Real Estate Law, as well as the explicit effect on Criminal Law and Wrongful Death statutes, this Amendment could create uncertainty and endless litigation.”
Daniel Becker, the former leader of Georgia Right to Life and founder of the Personhood Alliance, also sees the personhood issue as extending beyond abortion rights, but in a different direction. The final chapter of Becker's 2011 manifesto, "Personhood," is written in the form of a science fiction story set in a "post-human future" in which computers have gained consciousness, procreation has been moved to laboratories, and a "specialized sub-class of human-animal hybrids" has been developed to perform menial labor. The anti-abortion rights movement, he argues, will cease to be relevant in coming battles over biotechnology if it remains "at its heart, anti-abortion as opposed to pro-sanctity of human life." He argues that only by embracing full "personhood" rights for zygotes and fetuses will the movement remain viable in the future.
The personhood movement, while it has hope in the legal system, also recognizes that it won’t get far without winning hearts and minds. In the final post in this series, we’ll look at the movement’s efforts to reorganize in the wake of electoral defeats.
Organizations:Thomas More Law Center , National Right to Life Committee , National Pro-Life Alliance, National Personhood Alliance, Georgia Right to Life, Americans United for Life
During a speech earlier this month at televangelist Morris Cerullo’s annual conference, Mike Huckabee said that school shootings wouldn’t take place if public schools organized daily prayers, religious assemblies, Bible readings and “chapel services.”
“Because we were bringing Bibles to school people weren’t bringing guns to school, except for the deer hunters who left them in their trucks,” Huckabee said. “What has happened to our culture? What’s happened is we have lost our landmarks. When we reject the Bible as the objective word of truth, when we say that the Bible is no longer the standard by which we live and we make it whatever we feel, what we think, what we believe, then we have no landmark at all because that landmark is always being moved to accommodate our lifestyle rather than make our lifestyle accommodate the word of the living God and the power of the Holy Spirit.”
Back in 2012, Huckabee reacted to the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting by blaming those who “systematically removed God from our schools,” turning schools into “a place of carnage” and “violence.”
Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly, who once worried that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel might be a secret Muslim, told far-right talk show host Stan Solomon earlier this month that President Obama is “sweet on the Muslims.”
While speaking with Solomon about Obama’s absence from a demonstration of world leaders in Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack, Schlafly said Obama “does not want to admit there is Muslim terrorism, he pretends that it isn’t” and is “unwilling anytime to say there is Muslim terrorism.”
Schlafly told Solomon that extremists will only learn to “respect” the U.S. if the country makes its military “the biggest and strongest” in the world.
Bobby Jindal's Prayer Rally Advocates Putting Christians In Control Of Government And All Aspects Of Society
When Rick Perry organized his "The Response" prayer rally back in 2011, it brought a lot of unwanted attention to the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement and its agenda, in particular the Seven Mountains Mandate, which asserts that conservative Christians should take control of the seven main areas of culture and society: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion.
The organizers of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s "The Response" rally on Saturday — which was modeled on Perry’s event and featured many of the same Christian-nation extremists — didn’t seem to get the memo.
Gene Mills, president of Louisiana Family Forum (an official state affiliate of the Family Research Council) spent his entire ten-minute speech at Jindal's prayer rally this weekend openly preaching Seven Mountains Dominionism from the stage.
Christians have been tasked to take control of "the sphere of influence around civil government," Mills said, because all areas of culture "belong to God." Jindal's prayer rally, Mill's declared, was a key component of their effort "to reclaim territory that rightfully belongs to God" because "these seven spheres of influence are under enemy occupation right now."
After revealing that last month, he and other prayer rally organizers knelt in prayer with Jindal "asking God to break unholy alliances" over these areas of society, Mills led the gathering in a similar prayer.
"Father, we cry out for the seven mountains of influence today," Mills said. "We pray that you will give us government, arts and entertainment, education, the church, and the family. That our ambassadors would occupy the high places. That you would bring us into a place of understanding that they need to be occupied by the body of Christ because it's rightfully His":
Sandy Rios: Obama Used Islamic Subliminal Messages In The State Of The Union
1/21/15 @ 4:45pm
Sarah Palin: Defeat Hillary Clinton By Calling Liberals The Real Racists And Sexists
1/24/15 @ 7:05pm
Bobby Jindal's Extremist Prayer Rally Brings Together Prophets, Bigots And Far-Right Activists
1/22/15 @ 1:00pm
Tony Perkins: Dearborn And Neighborhoods In Minneapolis Are Muslim No-Go Zones
1/20/15 @ 11:35am
Mike Huckabee Falsely Claims Ted Nugent Changed The Lyrics To Sexually Explicit Song They Performed Together
1/21/15 @ 12:30pm