The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced March 6 that it supports and has agreed to defend the current citizen-initiated pro-life petition drive to amend the Michigan Constitution. The proposed amendment would provide that a person exists at the moment of conception for the purposes of statutes and the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “The success of this petition drive is vitally important if we are to insure that Michigan becomes a pro-life state after Roe v. Wade is overturned by the US Supreme Court. That’s why all pro-lifers should support it. This Amendment would clear the ground of all issues dealing with interpretation of previous state precedent and statutes.”
Continued Thompson, “I am deeply disappointed that after 33 years and 45 million babies murdered, some in the pro-life movement still say the time is not right. If one truly believes a human being exists at the moment of conception and shortly thereafter suffers excruciating and prolonged pain while being sliced and torn apart in the mother’s womb, how would they not do everything they can to save that child — even though there is no guarantee of success. The extreme caution exhibited by some pro-lifers reminds me of what Lincoln said about his reluctant General McClellan during the Civil War: “He has 'the slows,' too fearful of losing to risk winning.”
Just last week, Pope Benedict XVI told a gathering of scientists and medical professionals that Catholic teaching proclaims life begins at conception. He said, “[T]he Magisterium of the Church has constantly proclaimed the sacred and inviolable character of every human life, from its conception to its natural end.”
Reverend Stephen T. Anthony, Superintendent of the Eastern Michigan District of the Church of the Nazarene, and chairman of Michigan Chooses Life, a newly formed inter-denominational group of prominent Michigan pastors supporting the petition drive had this to say, “It is a biological, medical, and spiritual fact that a new and precious human life begins every time a child is conceived in the womb.”
Over three months ago, Thompson met with leaders of Michigan Citizens for Life, the organization spearheading the petition drive, at the Law Center offices in Ann Arbor where he had an opportunity to review the petition language. As a result of that review, the Law Center agreed to represent the group in any future lawsuit challenging the amendment if adopted by Michigan voters. The ACLU has already stated it will file a lawsuit challenging the amendment if adopted by the voters.
The petition drive must turn in 317,000 valid signatures by July 10, 2006 in order for the Constitutional Amendment to be placed on the November 7th ballot.
Right To Life–Lifespan, as well as Michigan’s two Republican National Committee members, Chuck Yobb and Holly Hughes have already endorsed the petition drive.
Most legal analysts agree that if the pro-life justices on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, they will merely rule that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion, and return the abortion issue to the individual states.
Pro-abortion forces have already analyzed the legal implications in each state should Roe be overturned. They have also developed a state-by-state strategy where old pre-Roe anti-abortion statues have not been repealed or have been blocked by court order.
Michigan pro-life organizations have done an admirable and outstanding job within the constraints of Roe v. Wade; however, they must now prepare for the time when the shackles of Roe are removed. Michigan is one of several states that did not repeal its pre-Roe anti-abortion statute. But immediately after the Roe decision, the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the statute to track Roe, in effect allowing abortions throughout the nine months of pregnancy. Thus any attempt to enforce the old pre-Roe statutes after Roe is overturned will immediately be met with court challenges by pro-abortionists. This constitutional amendment will not only be the basis on which pro-life legislators can enact new laws prohibiting abortions, but it will also prevent future legislatures from enacting pro-abortion laws.
Moreover, pro-abortion lawyers have already devised an additional counter-measure to post–Roe situations. They will argue the concept of “implied repeal.” Under that doctrine they will attempt to show that subsequent acts of the legislature, such as regulating the abortion industry, are irreconcilably in conflict with a state’s previous ban, and thus the latest statute has repealed the earlier one by implication. Granted, this is a difficult argument to make, but nonetheless, one that pro-lifers will have to be ready to defend against.
Said Thompson, “We should not refrain from direct challenges to Roe v. Wade simply because some pro-life strategists caution “wait” — the Court is not ready. Directly challenging Roe does not mean we should abandon other pro-life legislative proposals aimed at chipping away at abortions. Nobody can know with any real certainty the ideal time to challenge any given decision. Under those circumstances all pro-life organizations, regardless of their opinion on a specific proposal, should work together in a spirit of unity. We should mount an assault on Roe from all directions.”
In another great human rights struggle Martin Luther King Jr. had to contend with the same “wait” argument that opposed his direct action in Birmingham, Alabama. In his famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, he responded, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This ‘Wait’ has always meant ‘Never.’ We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that, ‘justice too long delayed is justice denied.’”
Just imagine what would be the response of the unborn child awaiting the cruel fate of abortion to the “Wait” argument?
(This update is courtesy of the The Thomas More Law Center.)
