Bill of Rights
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These Amendments prohibit "depriving any person of life without due process of law". Amendment XIV adds the clause providing equal protection of the laws to all persons. Implies that "due process of law" shall apply to each individual person in each individual case. The unborn children of pregnant mothers have been defined as "persons" in the law prior to the enactment of the U.S. Bill of Rights and are still defined as legal "persons" in U.S. law except in cases where the mother chooses to deprive her unborn child of life through judicially sanctioned abortion.
Here is a synopsis of what is meant by "choice" with regard to judicially created "abortion rights":
The courts have held that a pregnant mother can arbitrarily decide whether her unborn child is a legal "person" or not, thus also denying the unborn child equal protection of the laws. The mothers most likely to arbitrarily deny their unborn children the status of legal "person" and deprive them of life without due process of law are mothers who have exhibited the lack of reproductive responsibility and poor judgment in sexual conduct resulting in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.( In other words, those least likely or qualified to make thoughtful and well-reasoned decisions.) In any other case, depriving another person of life without due process of law when the continuation of that person's life conflicts with the socio-economic interests of the depriver of life is generally regarded as criminal homicide or murder. When the deprivation of the person's life is premeditated and deliberate, it is referred to as murder in the first degree, which warrants a death sentence in many jurisdictions.
The courts have turned their backs on these unwanted, unborn children and have usurped the police power of the State to insure that these children be deprived of life without due process of law nor equal protection of the laws. In other words, the courts have issued an open death sentence against an entire class of persons simply because these persons live in circumstances deemed exempt by the courts from protection of the law.
The physicians who perform the procedure to deprive the unborn child of life without the Constitutional requirement of "due process of law" are generally compensated and derive their livelihoods in part or even sometimes in whole from that compensation. This means that they deprive persons of life for hire and have an economic interest in the proliferation of these homicidal medical procedures. There is only one honest descriptive term to apply to it:evil.
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine. It is widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates, the father of western medicine, in the 4th century BC, or by one of his students.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
The "pro-choice" lobby and political position supports keeping this judicially contrived trapdoor in the Constitution open, and the wanton, lucrative disposal of unwanted unborn persons through it, perpetuated. The tally of victims is reputed to be forty million and counting. Despite misrepresentations in the "mainstream media", the "pro-choice" position does not enjoy a popular majority in the United States. Polling on the issue is deliberately skewed by couching the question in a framework that casts the mother in the role of victim. (Rape! Incest!) It deliberately engages the human compassion in the polling sample to induce them to "sympathetically" advocate for the murder of the child. This is literally diabolical.
Note the numbers when the question is personalized to the interviewees:
(Note the ad for "The God who wasn't there."at the following webpage:)
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 12-14, 2007. N=1,212 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"
8/30 - 9/2/06
"Regardless of whether you think abortion should be allowed or not, do you personally believe having an abortion is wrong?"
Sixty percent "potentially violent extremists"! Violent opposition to the murder of children is radical? Really? On what planet? Right here on planet Earth, in the Government of the United States and the "pro-choice" community, apparently. In the rest of the country, violent opposition to the murder of children is regarded as basic human decency, except that abortion is being presented to the public as "compassionate relief" to "innocent damsels in distress". That is what the Word of God describes as sorcery or witchcraft. The public has been put under a "spell" or a maliciously distorted perception of reality. (Which I have just broken by operation of the Gift of God, by the way. Blessed be His Just and Holy Name.) The only party that has a true vested interest in all of this innocent bloodshed is the Devil. All other parties are simply rejecting non-homicidal alternatives. (God! What a devastating, damning insight.) This is why I contend that the elites of the dominant government/media paradigm consciously and actively worship the Devil. It's actually the most reasonable explanation of the true motives of their socio-political conduct: ominously occultic and spiritually driven.
The only relevant polling questions on the issue of abortion in the United States of America are:
Do you know whether abortion is lawful and permissible under the United States Constitution or not?
The U.S. Supreme Court holds that it is.
Do you agree?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
If you don't know, why don't you know?