Defending Life 2011
374
STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
States seeking a meaningful and effective mechanism to protect human life should consider the following state constitutional amendment. A version of these sections was originallydrafted by Paul Benjamin Linton
1
, adopting language from the Arkansas and Rhode Island stateconstitutions.
Section 1.
The policy of [
Insert name of State
] is to protect the life of every unborn child fromconception to birth, to the extent permitted by the federal constitution.
Section 2.
Nothing in this constitution shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating toabortion or the public funding thereof.
Section 3.
No public funds shall be used to pay for any abortion, except to save the life of themother [
or as may be required by federal law
].Besides being simple, practical, and clear, there are several merits to this proposed language:it has been enacted in other states, it has been shown to be effective, and it can actually go intoeffect and do some good now and after
Roe v. Wade
is overturned.Section 1 of the proposed amendment is based on §2 of Amendment 68 of the ArkansasConstitution. It is aspirational and would guide the interpretation of existing and future statelaws by all branches of state government.Section 2 is based on Article I, § 2, of the Rhode Island Constitution. It is intended to preventany branch of state government, including the judiciary, from manufacturing a right to abortionunder the state constitution. It would also effectively overturn any existing state judicialdecisions creating such a “right.”Section 3 is based on §1 of Amendment 68 of the Arkansas Constitution. It is intended toprevent state funding of abortion to the extent permitted by federal law.
Endnotes
1
Paul Benjamin Linton, Esq. is an attorney in private practice in Illinois and a former General Counsel of Americans United for Life. He is also the author of
Abortion and State Constitutions: A State-by-State Analysis
(Carolina Academic Press 2008).
Defending Life 2011
375
JOINT RESOLUTION OPPOSINGTHE FEDERAL “FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT”
JOINT RESOLUTION No. ______ By Representatives/Senators ___________ WHEREAS, since 1989, some members of the United States Congress have repeatedly intro-duced and recommended for passage the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” which purports toclassify abortion as a “fundamental right,” equal in stature to the right to free speech and theright to vote – rights that, unlike abortion, are specically enumerated in the Constitution of theUnited States;[
OR, when introduced: WHEREAS, the 111
th
United States Congress has introduced the “Free-dom of Choice Act”, [H.R. ____ /S.____] which purports to classify abortion as a “fundamen-tal right,” equal in stature to the right to free speech and the right to vote – rights that, unlikeabortion, are specically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States;
]WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” is strongly supported by Barack Obama,President of the United States; members of the current Administration; and national and stateabortion-advocacy groups;WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would invalidate any “statute, ordinance,regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action” of any federal, state,or local government or governmental ofcial (or any person acting under government author-ity) that would “deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose” abortion, or that would “dis-criminate against the exercise of the right . . . in the regulation or provision of benets, facili-ties, services, or information”;WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would nullify any federal or state law “en-acted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment” and would ef-fectively prevent the State of [
Insert name of State
] from enacting similar protective measuresin the future;WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” could be passed as a whole by Congress or,alternatively, implemented piecemeal through legislation, budgetary measures, Executive Or-ders, and other policy determinations;WHEREAS, the 10
th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that “[t]hepowers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”;
376
Americans United for Life
WHEREAS, the power to determine an individual state’s abortion-related laws and policy in-cluding the delineation of appropriate medical requirements and standards for its provision hasnot been delegated in any manner to the federal government;WHEREAS, beginning with
Roe v. Wade
in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States hasexpressly and repeatedly recognized the right and authority of the states to regulate the provi-sion of abortion;WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that an individualstate, such as the State of [
Insert name of State
], “has a legitimate interest in seeing to it thatabortion, like any other medical procedure, is performed under circumstances that insure maxi-mum safety for the patient. This interest obviously extends
at least
to the performing physicianand his staff, to the facilities involved, to the availability of after-care, and to adequate provi-sion for any complication or emergency that might arise.”
Roe v. Wade
, 410 U.S. 113, 150(1973) (emphasis added);WHEREAS, the State of [
Insert name of State
] and the other states thus retain the authority toregulate the provision of abortion and, in the interest of protecting both women and the unborn,have acted accordingly and appropriately;WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would invalidate more than 550 federal andstate abortion-related laws, laws supported by the majority of the American public;WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” would specically invalidate the followingcommon sense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of [
Insert name of State
]
:
[
Drafter’s Note: Insert bulleted list of state laws that would be invalidated by the federal “Freedom of Choice Act.” AUL is available for assistance in compiling a complete list of af-fected state laws.
]WHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” will not make abortion safe or rare, but willinstead actively promote and subsidize abortion with State and Federal tax dollars and do noth-ing to ensure its safety; andWHEREAS, the federal “Freedom of Choice Act” will protect and promote the abortion indus-try, sacrice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion-on-demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningfulpublic discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
