Josh Brahm complains, in an opinion piece on LifeNews, that some personhood supporters lump pro-lifers like Mr. Brahm in with Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He complains specifically about a statement made by Wisconsin State Representative André Jacque, who recently introduced a Personhood amendment:
Quite frankly, it’s kind of odd to see them [some pro-life groups] on the same side as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, on a piece of legislation.
I agree with Mr. Brahm that such statements aren’t productive. But Mr. Brahm should recognize the frustration that many Personhood supporters feel when pro-lifers such as Mr. Brahm stand against Personhood legislation. Doesn’t Mr. Brahm find it “kind of odd” when pro-lifers oppose laws that recognize the right to life of preborn babies?
I know Mr. Brahm has his reasons (I think they’re weak) for opposing Personhood initiatives. He even states them in his opinion piece:
“incrementalists” are concerned that this bill will get nothing accomplished at best, and harm the pro-life movement at worst by adding significant case law against us.
How does pushing for Personhood accomplish nothing? Isn’t it the perfect platform for teaching people that every human being, from the beginning of life, has a God-given right to life? That’s one of the differences between a Personhood proposal and an abortion regulatory bill. When you regulate abortion, you’re not teaching the humanity of the unborn. Personhood provides that teaching opportunity.
Mr. Brahm is correct that Personhood could lose in court, building up pro-death case law. But pro-abortion judges already have all the case law they need in order to continue murdering babies. How much case law did Blackmun have when he opened the flood gates on the blood of the innocent? Contrary to Mr. Brahm, stare decisis had no part in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Rather, pro-abortion judges wanted baby-killing to stay legal, so they ruled according to that ideology. Stare decisis was merely a fig leaf. Good judges, on the hand, recognize that case law and stare decisis must be overturned when they're unconstitutional. It’s easy to see that case law is really irrelevant.
If Mr. Brahm and other pro-lifers don’t want to be lumped in Planned Parenthood, they shouldn’t publically oppose Personhood measures. When you oppose a proposal that recognizes that unborn babies have a right to life, someone might just think you oppose unborn babies having the right to life. Imagine that.
