North Dakota backbone

The Declaration of Independence sets forth the relationship between government and people. It also defines liberty as an inalienable right of the people. The Signers, looking at American today, might say: We warned you.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In a country where leadership is scarce, North Dakota has shown that it has more than its share of leaders who are not afraid to do the right thing. The Ides of March, a day made infamous by William Shakespeare, were associated with destruction. The Ides of March in 2013 proved to be compassionate for the unborn that cannot protect themselves from murders in medical coats – at least the unborn in North Dakota. (This according to The New York Times, where the story first broke.) You can be sure this recent occurrence will bring the usual vermin out of the woodwork – all claiming to defend the right of a woman to chose what happens to her own body. The trouble is that abortion is fatal to a body other than the woman’s – the baby’s.

The usual protests

Today liberal activists pushing for same sex marriage often refer to marriage as being a civil right. To these people marriage is more of a civil right than life, since the very same people duplicitously support abortion. As is the case with Mr. Obama, some go further and support abortion after birth. For the rest of us, that’s called infanticide – or murder. It seems civil rights come with a price – the price of a vote.

I’m sure the usual arguments will be vociferously raised:

  • What about rape?
  • What about if the child is genetically imperfect?

Well, what about it? If a woman is raped, it is reasonable to assume that she knows she has been raped as soon as the incident occurs. The North Dakota bill forbids abortion after a heartbeat can be detected, which is usually around six weeks after conception. With today’s technology, the argument that a rape victim needs more than six weeks to abort an unwanted child simply doesn’t hold water, since there are a plethora of tests that can detect pregnancy as early as 7 to 10 days after conception. And in the case of genetic abnormalities, when did we become like the Nazis and become the arbiter of who has the right to live and who doesn’t?

The Signers would praise North Dakota today

Signing of the Declaration of Independence.

When the Supreme Court passed its ungodly ruling in the famous Roe v. Wade case, it did so stating that women have a right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb. But that decision is not dissimilar to the Dred Scott ruling. In Scott v. Sandford, the high Court ruled that slaves were the property of their owners. In Roe v. Wade, the court upheld a women’s right over that of her unborn child. Is the child nothing more than the women’s property? Doesn’t a baby have rights as well? If abortion can be rationalized, can slavery? I think not. People do not belong to other people. Mothers have the right to raise and nurture their children as they see fit. Killing that child does not fall within that parameter – whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb.

In our Declaration of Independence, our Founders cited their reasons for declaring independence from Great Britain. In its preamble, they wrote that we have certain inalienable rights given to us by our God – not our Courts – that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A government that does not understand that its responsibility is to protect life is morally illegitimate and should be overturned – as it was back in 1776.

When Roe v. Wade was adjudicated, we knew little about what happened inside the womb and when. Things are different today. A child’s vital signs in gestation can be easily monitored. If a person’s vital signs are checked to determine whether or not that person is alive, the same measure should be used to determine whether or not a child is alive within its mother’s womb. If it is, the government has the responsibility to protect that life.

Kudos to North Dakota

There are many that will protest North Dakota’s new bill, calling it archaic or worse, but I say kudos to those in North Dakota that stood up for those who cannot speak for themselves. They are the heroes of today. I can only hope and pray that they will inspire others to stand up to the name-callers and ideologues who call good evil and evil good. God bless you, North Dakota. May you set a new standard in this nation and may you be an example for those who cowardly believe the lies of the ungodly. Abolitionists were brave in their day and so are anti-abortionists today. If this land is to remain the land of the free it must also remain the home of the brave.

[subscribe2]

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

5 Responses to North Dakota backbone

  1. DinsdaleP says:

    So when does human life, and full human rights for that life under the law, begin?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      When else but at conception? To draw the line at any later stage would be to grant the premise that some human lives were worthy, and some not. That would allow Peter W. Singer’s proposal: to place newborns on probation for one month, during which time a mother may order the infant killed at her pleasure.

  2. DinsdaleP says:

    “When else but at conception? To draw the line at any later stage would be to grant the premise that some human lives were worthy, and some not. ”

    Perhaps you and your colleague Roseann should have a conversation then, to reconcile this statement from the essay above:

    “With today’s technology, the argument that a rape victim needs more than six weeks to abort an unwanted child simply doesn’t hold water, since there are a plethora of tests that can detect pregnancy as early as 7 to 10 days after conception.”

    That seems to argue that there’s an acceptable window of time to abort a pregnancy. If not, and if both of you believe that there should be no allowance for abortion even in the case of rape, then you should just say so.

    If you do though, you’re just saying that in the interest of “rights”, it’s acceptable to support the rights of a fertilized egg by taking away the rights of a rape victim to make decisions about her own body door the next nine months. She becomes nothing more than an incubator.

    The typical reply is that “rape is a terrible crime, but why compound it with murder by taking the innocent life that results from it as well?”. That sidesteps the fundamental point – is it moral to take away a woman’s right to control her own body by saying the fertilized egg forced on her has more rights than she does?

    I’m not pro-abortion, but I believe that the last place a government has the right to interfere with a citizen is within their own body.

    Also, if life begins at conception, what is the government to do with the fertilized eggs and stored embryos not being implanted and brought to term by the couples creating them? Are they to be seized by the state as abandoned children are, and put up for adoption over the objections of the donor parents?

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      You might as well ask whether a child has more rights than his or her parents, with that attitude. Your way lies Peter W. Singer.

      I’m not pro-abortion, but I believe that the last place a government has the right to interfere with a citizen is within their own body.

      You contradict yourself. Two bodies. Two. Count them. Or have you forgotten how to count?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.