Fifty Versions of What is Right -by Heather Osborne

In an interview with FOX News, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee stated, "For those of us for whom [abortion] is a moral question, you can't have 50 different versions of what's right." Well, it sounds simple; but some Americans disagree with the statement made by Governor Huckabee. Some believe that the decision to illegalize abortion should be a law made by each individual state. Because the actual word "abortion" is not found in the Constitution of the United States, some say that making abortion illegal on the Federal level would be unconstitutional. These people also argue their belief that an Amendment to the Constitution concerning the illegality of abortion would be unlikely to pass in both the House and the Senate. Others say that because Roe versus Wade overturned the states' laws concerning abortion, Roe versus Wade should be reversed by giving that power back to the states to decide about abortion laws. Though many of these reasons may sound appealing and logical, some key facts and ideas have been overlooked by those who have come to the conclusion that abortion should be a state issue. After examining the facts, one must conclude that abortion was made a Federal government issue, that abortion is unconstitutional, and that the right to life should be defined only once.

Though abortion has not always been a Federal issue, the Supreme Court's decision about abortion in Roe versus Wade made abortion a Federal issue. It was the Federal government's decision to make abortion legal, and it must therefore be the Federal government's decision to make abortion illegal. The Federal government must not waive the responsibility it has imposed upon itself, but rather right those it has wronged concerning abortion.

The Supreme Court's decision to legalize abortion contradicted the rights given to individuals recognized by the Federal government in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence clearly states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these [rights] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." Abortion infringes upon these rights recognized by the Federal government which were given to all human beings by God. According to the Declaration of Independence, when the Supreme Court decided to legalize abortion the government's purpose to "secure these rights" was defeated.

Another reason life should be protected by the Federal government is that abortion clearly violates the Constitution of the United States, a Federal document. The Preamble to the Constitution says that one purpose of the Constitution is to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." "Posterity" refers to America's children or offspring. Abortion prevents "the Blessings of Liberty" from being bestowed on our "Posterity," thereby making abortion unconstitutional.

Certain civil rights, guaranteed by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, would also heavily indicate that abortion is unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, [or] liberty..." Science advocates the idea that individual life begins at conception making the fetus a "person." When the Federal government decided to legalize abortion, they gave their consent for the deprivation of many people's lives and liberties.

Finally, Section 1 of Article 4 in the Constitution says that each state is to recognize and respect the acts and judicial rulings of other states. Therefore, if the decision to illegalize abortion was left up to each individual state, not all states may choose to have the same law regarding abortion. Some states may decide to illegalize abortion; and others may not. Due to the nature of the issue, having varied state laws concerning abortion creates practically incompatible systems, which must be reconciled due to Section 1, Article 4 in the Constitution. To leave the decision to illegalize abortion up to individual states would simply create more problems than solutions.

After one examines the facts, the conclusion that each individual human life should be protected by the Federal government is irrevocable. It is clear that because abortion was made legal by the Federal government, it must be made illegal by the Federal government, as it has made abortion it's self-imposed responsibility. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights - all of which are Federal documents - guarantee the right to life to individuals with no exceptions. In conclusion, it would be simply unreasonable to expect fifty states to all come to the exact same conclusion about the right to life. In order to inhibit confusion and abide by the Constitution, it would be much more simple and definite to make a Constitutional Amendment clearly defining and advocating a baby's right to life. The right to life is too precious of a freedom to be lost, too valuable of a gift to be taken, and too simple of a phenomenon to be interpreted fifty times!

Florida Judge Legislates Homosexual Adoption: By Sandy Trusso

We were told by the homosexual community that we didn't need a marriage amendment, because we already had a Florida law prohibiting same sex marriage... Well we also have a Florida law prohibiting the adoption of children by homosexuals (and I would like to know who took it upon themselves to allow homosexuals to become foster parents?)! Their argument to allow gays to adopt children, simply because there is a shortage of heterosexuals willing to adopt them, is disgusting (First of all I find this hard to believe, that the only people who want to adopt, for foster the children, out of the goodness of their hearts, are homosexuals)! Their conclusion is like saying that there aren't enough normal people to watch the hen house, so we must assign this responsibility to the fox!

For roughly 35 years that I know of, until recently, even the male homosexual community admitted publicly that (sexually) they seek out, and recruit, young boys. They even referred to the young boys as the "chickens" and to themselves as the "chicken hawks". However, since the public has become aware of this admission, and the homosexual community realizes that this admission is not politically expedient for their cause (to legitimize this "abomination" by law), they pretend that this isn't true!

The amazing thing is that when the "Priest scandal" became public, it was one of the most horrible things I could've imagined, but as horrible as it was at least the children weren't held legally captive... they could still go home. For a child to be legally adopted by a homosexual, and forced on a daily basis to live in this home, with no escape, is an outrage! In other words, "Let's be more concerned with satisfying the abnormal sexual urges of the homosexual, than we are about the trauma to the child who can't escape!"

Subject: Miami judge to rule on Fla. gay adoption ban

Miami judge to rule on Fla. gay adoption ban

The Associated Press

Published: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 5:01 a.m.

A Miami judge is expected to rule on a challenge to a Florida law banning adoption of children by gay people.

A decision was due Tuesday on the request by 47-year-old Martin Gill to adopt two young boys he has been raising as foster children. The state of Florida has fought in court against Gill's petition to adopt the boys.

Florida has one of the strictest bans on gay adoptions in the country. A judge in Key West ruled in September that the ban was unconstitutional, but that ruling has had limited legal impact.

The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with Gill in the case. The ACLU says there is a shortage of parents for adoptions in Florida, where at a given time there are about 1,000 children waiting to be adopted.