© 2010 The Partnership Machine, Inc.

The "Life at Conception Act" which might end abortion in 2013 if Republicans can regain the U.S. Senate, is not significantly greener than the legal green light already shining for 10 years. The 2000 and 2004 laws already satisfy the conditions of Roe v. Wade's "collapse" clause, allowing state lawmakers to outlaw abortion as if Roe never existed. Why are prolife leaders waiting for a 3rd light? Read the outrageous answer!

The contribution of state personhood initiatives is not to impose a radically new legal environment on the nation, but merely to bring state laws into conformity with federal laws like Roe v. Wade, Laci and Conner's Law, the Preamble, Due Process, the Necessity Defense,  the Declaration of Independence, as well as Nuremburg precedents, the Laws of God, and basic, common human decency.

Personhood initiative leaders should argue that a state enacting a personhood amendment would not impose a controversial, radically new legal environment upon the nation, but would only bring the state's laws into conformity with federal laws enacted in 2000 and 2004! It would make lawmakers and the public aware of what is already their right, and would encourage obedience to what already is the law.
      State personhood laws lack the legal force of the federal laws of 2000 and 2004. There is more pressure on the U.S. Supreme to conform its rulings to federal laws (until such time as it declares them unconstitutional) than to follow state laws.

      That's one reason Missouri still permits abortions even though it declared tunborn he personhood 23 years ago!

      The law was  Mo. Rev. Stat. 1.205.1: ...the life of each human being begins at conception...unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being [and all Missouri laws] shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development, all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state, to the extent permitted by the Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court rulings. [Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 US 490. ruled on the other laws passed with this statement, but did not rule on this statement's challenge to Roe, even though some lawyers will tell you it did. Abortion isn't even "constitutionally protected" any more, since Casey v. Pennsylvania. See the "Action Kit" for details.]

     Yet in 2010 Missouri had a new Personhood initiative - as if the lawmakers and courts who had ignored the old wording would suddenly follow the new. Nebraska and Louisiana have had similar language about as long! If we lack the courage to proceed on the old wording, will we find it for the new?

PDF of the Action Kit...