The candidate for the Supreme Court Amy Coney Barrett leaves herself an out on abortion saying Roe-v-Wade was superseded by Casey-v-Planned Parenthood, which leave authority with the court and not Congress.
She left herself an out at the beginning when she made the distinction of liberal-v-conservative in political parties and the judges view of constitution and law. Like Roberts on pushing thru Obama-care by calling a process a tax.
When it comes down to it, the government will get what they want for the future.
April 3, 2016
The question concerning abortion!
Let’s assume that Dr. Charles Tolbert is a candidate for United States President, and under the political party Citizens For A Better America (CFA).
Here’s his answer to the abortion question.
First, for a reporter to ask such a question shows their lack of knowledge of the U.S. Constitution. Second, for a candidate to respond without referring to the constitution shows their ignorance.
What does the constitution say?
First the rights under first, tenth and fourteenth amendment needs to be understood. Simply stated, religious rights, states rights and individual rights.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Declaration of Human Rights (1949). Article 19 states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.”
Understandable many politicians are not aware of the constitution, nor are the members of the three branches.
I will not go in detail, but readers need to understand the president does not make laws, Congress does, and the Supreme Court only interprets these laws.
Also should the issue of abortion become state law under a state constitutional amendment, the people of a state must vote for it to become an amendment.
If the US senate elects to circumvent state rights they would need to make an amendment to the United States Constitution, which again circumvents state rights. So the next senator has to be aware of the rights of each state under a federalization and republic.
When does life begin?
“Just as death is usually defined by the cessation of brain activity, so the start of life can be defined as the start of a recognizable Electroencephalography[wp] (EEG) pattern from the foetus. This is usually twenty four to twenty seven weeks after conception.
The point of using neurological factors rather than other signs, such as a heartbeat, is that this is a much more useful indicator from the point of view of science. A heart beats using involuntary muscle movements so is really little different from any other spontaneous motion or metabolic process. A heartbeat means relatively little in real terms, although it is more dramatic from an emotive point of view.”
When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn’t have an answer for us, and that “when does life begin” is, in fact, a meaningless question.
Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises:
“The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be a human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science.
Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between “life” and “non-life” purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities.”
Exodus 21:22- If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. KJV
Here is the question: if a person holds a gun to a child and kills the child, should that individual be charged with a crime of murder? The second question is: if there is a co-conspirator which would be the one who furnished the gun and the ammunition, knowing the intent of an individual was to murder a child, should that individual as an assessor also be prosecuted for murder?
Answering these two questions does require a constitutional amendment. To describe an outline… is it murder if one participates in an abortion?
The probability of an amendment to define legality of abortion would be the necessity to ensure the safety of the woman giving birth.
If a woman’s life was in danger during the term of pregnancy, should the consideration of her rights of choice under the 14th amendment override the issue of abortion?
In addition should the religious rights of the woman override the state and federal Constitution if in fact it violates her rights? Should either the State or Congress establish a law restricting or preventing or endorsing rights which remove her own free choice?
These questions and answers are very controversial and cannot be left to the president of the United States. The president or candidates direct response should be to challenge the question given to them and the ignorance of the multi media for asking.
The question that would be asked of the pastor, an educator or candidate would circumvent the constitutional rights of the woman. Should that candidate answer the question without taking into consideration the above comments shows their ignorance.
If a woman’s life was in danger and two doctors certified that should she carry a child to term the probability of her death is greatly increased, then and only then the decision has to be left to the man and woman who have,. under the constitution the right to make a decision affecting their life, liberty and well-being.
Should pro-life or anti-pro-life have a right to speak for an individual cannot be clarified. But they do have a constitutional right under the first, second, tenth and 14th amendment to voice their opinion.
However it should be remembered that the individual rights in each and every state come before these individuals and the individual elect or rights cannot be circumvented by the courts unless the state or the federal government or Congress passes a constitutional amendment.
So in answering the question; where does Dr. Tolbert stand on the issue of abortion?
The woman’s and man’s rights to life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness overrides any and all constitutional amendments. The right of the child, once it is conceived, and does not endanger the life of the woman to the pursuit of happiness of the mother should and must be allowed, as God wills. The mother and fathers rights have to be reviewed and presented in a constitutional amendment voted on before passage by each and every United States citizen.
Anyone that violates the rights of the mother father or child should be subject to prosecution according to the required amendment to the constitution.
Any child at time of conception and or brain activity that is aborted without the consent or written confirmation by a medical professional is also subject to violation.
In conclusion; the beginning of life is subjective and can only be determined by the voters of each state in a constitutional amendment and not by politicians or the news media or even the medical profession.
The reader of this article must conclude that the final determination is between the mother and father and God and should not ever be determined by a constitutional amendment or politician.
Apostle Charles Frederick Tolbert BS, DivM, EdM, EdD
Candidate for United States VP 2020
Copy Editor: Vilet Dye…firstname.lastname@example.org