Anti-Abortion Personhood Battle Moves Into Courtroom
Interestingly, the battle to grant full personhood status to a fetus includes Rob’s argument against abortion; being, the Constitution defends the principle of a right to life. It is not a moral position, but a Constitutional argument.
Unfortunately, in Mississippi, the AG is playing with their state Constitution to limit the time required to get enough signatures on the ballot, hoping to kill a personhood law in his state.
The battle over constitutional amendments across dozens of states that could sink the abortion industry by establishing constitutional rights for the unborn is heating up months in advance of the November elections with a detour into a Mississippi courtroom
WND has reported how the move is exploding among pro-life activists and that as many as 32 states are expected to address some sort of “personhood” vote this year – whether through a constitutional amendment or law.
Gualberto Garcia Jones is director of Personhood Colorado and a legal analyst for Personhood USA, a grass-roots Christian organization that seeks to legally define every unborn baby as a “person” protected by God-given and constitutionally protected rights, including the right to life.
“We’re trying to end abortion right now,” Garcia Jones told WND. “All of our laws that we’re promoting are direct challenges to Roe v. Wade. If we can get a challenge up to the Supreme Court, then that’s the ideal thing. That’s what we’re trying to do.”
The personhood approach within the pro-life movement was sparked by a statement in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that opened the doors for legal abortion in the U.S.
”We believe – and a lot of the justices on the Supreme Court agree with us – that there is no right to privacy that would allow abortion,” Garcia Jones said. “Since it’s not mentioned directly in the 14th Amendment, we could use the 10th Amendment and the states’ rights to police themselves and to pass laws regulating morality and health and safety to regulate abortion so it’s not permitted. Basically it would be treated the same way as a homicide, where a state can regulate how they punish it and how they try to prevent it, but they could never allow it.”
He continued, “We believe respect for life is in the Constitution, so therefore a state could never say you can kill a person.”
