Pregnancy Protection Act
"Any pregnant female of the species Homo sapiens shall be deemed
to carry a child who is a person under the Constitution of the
United States of America, with all the rights guaranteed therein,
and specifically the right to life as set forth in the 5th and
14th Amendments; pregnancy being defined as occurring at the mom-
ent during implantation in the uterus by the blastocyst when it
transforms into a a growing embryo and a chemical message is sent
to the mother's body to prepare it for bearing a child, and meas-
urable by a pregnancy test."
- Proposed September 2005
Bill passed and signed into law in South Dakota in March 2006:
"The guarantee of due process of law under the Constitution of
South Dakota applies equally to born and unborn human beings, and
that under the Constitution of South Dakota, a pregnant mother
and her unborn child, each possess a natural and inalienable right
It's a little inaccurate, since you are actually born at the time
of implantation in the womb. Also, the complete bill is confused
on what constitutes a pregnancy, and in trying to avoid the pit-
fall of Life at Conception bills, that would outlaw birth control
pills, contradicts its own language. I wish they had studied my
book so that they better understood the early human reproductive
process. See Chapter 11, When Human Life Begins, for the complete
analogies and scientific explanation. You can then compare that
to the law at:
The bill is called the "Women's Health and Human Life Protection
Act". I think we all know what effect abortion has on the health
of the child. But do you know how it affects the woman's health?
One dead, one wounded. Sometimes two dead. See my book.
"...pro-abortion forces collected signatures and put on the ballot
a statewide initiative to cancel the law. This led to an intense
campaign prior to the November election. Pro-life forces were tot-
ally outgunned financially as huge sums of money came into the
state...", and the law was voted down.
"There was no question at all as to why the law lost. It could be
summed up in one four-letter word, RAPE. Polls prior to the vote
had consistently shown that because there was no exception for
rape, the law would fail. On the other hand, similar polls had
shown that if there was a rape exception to the law, it would have
passed. ...pro-abortion forces concentrated their effort on horror
stories about rape", even though "Assault rape pregnancies are a
tiny fraction of 1% of the pregnancies in the United states and
certainly are less than 1% of the abortions done. ...more than
half of the women impregnated in an assault rape situation elect
to carry their babies to term..."
"...we should not kill an innocent baby for the crime of his father.
We don't punish other criminals by killing their offspring, so why
permit it in this case?"
"It seems obvious that if the solidly pro-life state of South Dakota
can't pass and maintain a law that has no rape exception, not many
other states could either. Certainly such a law could not pass
nationally. It also seems obvious that a major precedent has been
set. ...any" legislation "will almost certainly have to include
a rape exception."
"...when we say 'rape,' we must be very specific. ...the law must
narrowly define this as 'assault' or 'forcible' rape. ...it must
be reported within a limited period of time. ...the fact that she
was forcibly raped, either plainly evident or clearly proven...
report(ed) it to a responsible agency".
"...recognizing that 'politics is the art of the possible' ...we
should settle 'for now' for the overwhelming good. ...a final at-
tempt can be made to wipe out these rape...exceptions. ...in a
sophisticated medical climate there basically does not exist any
problem that requires 'killing the baby to save the mother.'"
The above quotes were from Dr. J.C. Willke, MD, a giant in the
pro-life movement for decades, taken from the Life Issues Connector,
January, 2007, issue, a publication of his Life Issues Institute,
Inc., 1821 W. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45239, Phone 513
729 3600, E-mail: email@example.com, web site www.lifeissues.org.
This is the same point I made in my book, that outlawing abortion
in rape cases is just too difficult a case to make and should not
be allowed to hamper the criminalization of other abortions, esp-
ecially since it accounts for such a tiny percentage of pregnanc-
ies, even though it's logically inconsistent, and I'm glad to see
that Dr. Willke has finally come around to my point of view. Hope-
fully, there's a little "cross-pollinization" going on here. How-
ever, another article in that same issue of the Connector, refers
to "400,000 frozen human embryos". Shame on you, Dr. Willke, even
though you didn't write it, as "Publisher" of Connector, I assume
you "signed off" on it, and that implies tacit approval. Surely
you know that, to the best of our knowlege, no such thing as a
frozen human embryo exists anywhere in the world, let alone 400,
000. That's because an embryo is a person, in it's first 8 weeks
of development, and we don't have the technology to freeze people
and then bring them back to life. These are not 400,000 "tiny
person"(s), as the Connector referred to them, but 400,000 tiny
blastocysts, or "blastodermic vesicles", of about 250 cells, con-
taining eight embryonic stem cells, that can combine to create an
embryo, or person, if the other 242 cells are able to embed them-
selves in the wall of the uterus and form the placenta and umbil-
ical cord, much as a plant seed grows roots and a stem when it is
planted in the ground and draws water and nutrients from the soil.
If you're frozen, you're dead - period. Your heart and brain stop
functioning. Well, maybe for thirty minutes, you can still be re-
vived, but then that's it. But I do agree with Dr. Willke, that
once we've outlawed other reasons for abortion, those who care to
can then fight the battle to outlaw abortions caused by rape.
This is not to say there aren't serious ethical and religious con-
cerns about what happens to a blastocyst. But a blastocyst is not
a person. It has no physical feature of a person, nor are the in-
dividual, and separate, embryonic stem cells people. Calling the
blastocyst a person is comparable to calling a peach a peach tree,
and you'll never hear anybody say that because it's a patently
ridiculous statement. If the pro-life movement insists on promot-
ing this deception in pro-life bills, they will repeat the failure
in South Dakota, because the pro-abortion people will claim that
the legislation can be used to outlaw birth control pills that
prevent implantation in the uterus, thus causing an abortion. The
truth is, there's nobody to abort at that stage.
If you found this informative, there's plenty more of the same in
Another perspective follows:
"... a debate was held between the VoteYesforLife and Planned
Parenthood. This debate illustrated the colossal strategic error
of the pro-life campaign. Pro-aborts always focus all their at-
tention on the choices of born people, and hope you forget about
the unborn victims. Unfortunately, the abortion-ban advocates
played right along. They never showed anybody what abortion is
and what it does to unborn people. Instead, they focused entirely
on the interests of born people. People came away from the debate
thinking that the interests of born people are all that's at
stake, and they voted against the ban. To understand the folly of
this strategy, ask yourself whether the abolitionists of the 1800s
would have won by talking about what slavery does to white people,
but never about its effect on black people. Would people who fight
genocide talk only about what the Holocaust did to Aryans, but
never talk about what the Holocaust did to Jews?"
Taken from Standing in the GAP, CBR Southeast Region, June 2007.
GAP stands for Genocide Awareness Project, and CBR stands for
Center for Bioethical Reform. My book is packed with statements
like the passage above.
On a brighter note, on April 18, 2007, "the United States Supreme
Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, upheld the federal Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban Act of 2003." It won't stop many abortions, because
there are other methods that can be substituted, but it does have
significance, as a hard won victory, and for some of the other
reasons expressed below:
"The pro-life movement has taken a key step forward - For the
first time since Roe v. Wade, we have banned an abortion proced-
ure." Father Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life
"Gonzales adopts a new legal language with which to discuss abor-
tion. It often speaks of 'child' (not 'fetus'), 'mother' (not
'woman'), and 'abortion doctor' (not 'physician'). Gonzales v.
Carhart stops the momentum of the abortion movement". Rev. Pavone
and Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth, President of United Methodists on
"...we rejoice to see this triumph of truth over falsehood...for
the protection of the vulnerable and defenseless...the first step
has been taken....a battle won in our struggle toward triumph in
the war for securing the womb as a place of safety for all persons
...our hope that our society will yet make the long journey out of
the barren wilderness that is the abortion culture.....concrete
expression of sanity and compassion....curtail the shedding of
innocent human life in the birth canal. May this decision signal
the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade and the horror of the
'legalized' killing of children in the first home of the human
race, their mothers womb." Reverend J. Kirk van der Swaagh, NPRC
Vice-President, Conservative Congregational Christian Conference,
and Randolph Sly, President, Common Good Foundation
Abortion doesn't just make you unpregnant, it makes you the mother
of a dead baby. Thus: "...women come to regret an abortion...
The Supreme Court finally acknowledged the truth about abortion's
second victim. I firmly believe it marks the beginning of the end
of legalized abortion in the United States. The barbaric nature of
abortion is being exposed. Ultimately, I believe we will make a-
bortion unthinkable and unnecessary because people will see that
no one benefits." Georgette Forney, President of Anglicans for
Life, and Co-founder of Silent No More
Well, I can't agree that "no one benefits". The people who perform
abortions, like Planned Parenthood, benefit enormously financially,
and that's why they fight so hard, and twist the truth, and manip-
ulate people to keep it legal.
"Justice Kennedy declares: 'The state has an interest in ensuring
so grave a choice is well informed. It is self-evident that a
mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with
grief more anguished and sorrow more profound when she learns,
only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allow-
ed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast-developing
brain of her unborn child'".
The preceding quotes were taken from Uniting For Life, A Christian
Pro-Life Newsletter, Spring 2007, published by the National Pro-
Life Religious Council, 109 2nd St. N.E., Washington, DC 2002
website: www.nprcouncil.org e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org
Personally, I believe that Justice Kennedy has seen the light, and
will continue to vote with the pro-life block. August 14, 2007