MISSOURI ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS REJECT
MISSOURI PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT:
Now at least Seven States' Roman Catholic Bishops have opposed Personhood efforts
Roman Catholic Bishops of these Seven States have OPPOSED State-Level Personhood legislation:
- MICHIGAN: 2006
- GEORGIA: 2008
- COLORADO: 2008 & 2009 & 2010
- MONTANA: 2008 & 2009
- NORTH DAKOTA: 2009
- FLORIDA: 2009
- MISSOURI: 2010
______
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE MISSOURI CATHOLIC BISHOPS ON THE PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT PETITION DRIVE
www.mocatholic.org/Links/Session/Personhood%20Amendment.pdf
MISSOURI CATHOLIC CONFERENCE: "The Official Public Policy voice of the Catholic Church in the Show-Me State"
www.MOCatholic.org
Approved April 19, 2010
[ excerpts, emphasis added]
It is true that present Missouri law does not outlaw and prevent the scourge that is abortion. However, neither would
the proposed Personhood Amendment. No state constitution or state law can overturn provisions of the U.S Constitution
or interpretations of the U.S. Constitution by the U.S. Supreme Court. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution states that:
[ sic - the Missouri Roman Catholic Bishops' statement is wrong, this quote below is not from Article IV. of the
U.S. Constitution, but from Article VI. ]
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; … shall be the supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every state shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding. (emphasis added)
[ See CCL "Comments on the Fraud and Fallacies of the Missouri Roman Catholic Bishops Statement" ]
Through the Missouri Catholic Conference, and in our day-to-day ministry, we work tirelessly to promote human life
from conception to natural death. [ CCL Note: Rubbish ! ] This legislative session, the MCC is working to pass pro-life legislation strengthening Missouri’s informed consent laws [ CCL Note: i.e., Missouri's incremental, "abortion"/murder,
read some information, AND THEN YOU CAN KILL THE BABY laws. ], and assuring that abortion is not provided through the health insurance exchanges established under the new healthcare reform law.
[ CCL Note: God's Requirement for Murder is JUSTICE, NOT incremental "Regulation" !!! Exodus 20:13, KJB ]
We urge your support and assistance with the Missouri Catholic Conference’s efforts in this regard. You can assist their efforts by joining the MCC Citizen Network at www.mocatholic.org.
/ SIGNED /
Most Reverend [ sic - Ps. 111:9, KJB ] Robert J. Carlson, Executive Chairman, Archdiocese of St. Louis
Most Reverend [ sic - Ps. 111:9, KJB ] Robert Finn, Vice Chairman, Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph
Most Reverend [ sic - Ps. 111:9, KJB ] John R. Gaydos, General Chairman, Diocese of Jefferson City
Most Reverend [ sic - Ps. 111:9, KJB ] James Johnston, Diocese of Springfield-Cape Girardeau
Most Reverend [ sic - Ps. 111:9, KJB ] Robert J. Hermann, Auxiliary Bishop of St. Louis
[ CCL Note:
These five "NOT-Reverend's" represent ALL FIVE of the active Roman Catholic Bishops in the State of Missouri ]
______
CCL "Comments on the Fraud and Fallacies of the Missouri Roman Catholic Bishops Statement"
Steve Lefemine, pro-life missionary
dir., Columbia Christians for life
May 20, 2010
- The "Joint Statement of the Missouri Catholic Bishops on the Personhood Amendment Petition Drive"
is deficient in several respects:
Eight Items:
1) WHERE HAVE THE POPE-APPOINTED, UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF [ ROMAN ] CATHOLIC BISHOPS
BEEN FOR APPROX. 20 YEARS ON SUPPORTING FEDERAL PERSONHOOD BILLS ??? WHY HASN'T
THE VATICAN / POPE / ROME BEEN SUPPORTING PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION IN THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS ???
[ The simple answer is that the Pope-appointed, U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops (USCCB) DO NOT SUPPORT
THE END OF "ABORTION" IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, period. ]
It should be noted that the Missouri Roman Catholic Bishops join the Roman Catholic Bishops in at least six other States
(Michigan, Georgia, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, and Florida) in OPPOSING State-Level Personhood legislation.
One must ask, why are the Pope-appointed Bishops of the U.S. Roman Catholic Dioceses in these SEVEN States are
opposed to State-Level Personhood legislation,
THEN WHY ARE THESE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS NOT SUPPORTING THE FEDERAL PERSONHOOD
LEGISLATION PRESENTLY IN THE US HOUSE AND US SENATE ? WHY ARE THESE POPE-APPOINTED
ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS NOT SUPPORTING THESE THREE FEDERAL PERSONHOOD BILLS PRESENTLY
IN THE US CONGRESS ???:
1) HR 881, "Right to Life Act " – Intro. in US House, February 4, 2009;
2) HR 2533, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2009" [removes jurisdiction of Federal Courts] – Intro. in US House, May 20, 2009;
3) S 346, "Life at Conception Act – Intro. in US Senate, January 29, 2009.
[ The 2009-2010 Session is the 111th Congress. ]
WHY HAS THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF [ ROMAN ] CATHOLIC BISHOPS, ALL OF WHOM ARE
APPOINTED BY ROME'S POPE, NOT BEEN SUPPORTING FEDERAL PERSONHOOD LEGISLATION THAT
STRETCHES BACK CONTINUOUSLY TO AT LEAST 1995:
1995: HR 1625, "Right to Life Act of 1995" - Intro. in US House (104th), May 12, 1995;
1997: HR 641, "Right to Life Act of 1997" - Intro. in US House (105th), February 6, 1997;
1999: HR 639, "Right to Life Act of 1999" - Intro, in US House (106th), February 9, 1999;
2001: HR 2763, "Right to Life Act of 2001" - Intro. in US House (107th), August 2, 2001;
2003: HR 579, "Right to Life Act of 2003" - Intro. in US House (108th), February 5, 2003;
HR 3069, "Right to Life Act" - Intro. in US House (108th), September 10, 2003 [added definitions];
2005: HR 552, "Right to Life Act" [includes definitions] - Intro. in US House (109th), February 2, 2005;
HR 776, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2005" [removes jurisdiction of Federal Courts] - Intro. in US House (109th),
February 10, 2005;
2007: HR 618, "Right to Life Act" - Intro. in US House (110th), January 22, 2007;
HR 2597, "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" [removes jurisdiction of Federal Courts] - Intro. US House (110th),
June 6, 2007,
… AND WITH INTERRUPTION, BACK TO AT LEAST 1989:
1989: HR 623, the "Declaration of Personhood Act" - Intro. in U.S. House (101st), January 24, 1989 ???
PRESIDENT BUSH and CONGRESS COULD END ABORTION IN AMERICA IN ONE WEEK: [ December 2005 ]
President Bush and the US Congress have the power NOW to end abortion in America in one week:
Pass HR 552, the "Right to Life Act", amended with the addition of the Article III., Section 2. power of the
US Congress in the US Constitution to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court, and the
complete jurisdiction of the lower federal courts (US District Courts and US Circuit Courts of Appeal,
which were created by Congress by federal statute, and could even be eliminated by Congress by
federal statute, let alone have their jurisdictions limited). [ see HR 552 at http://thomas.loc.gov ]
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CCL05-21.doc
PRESIDENT BUSH and CONGRESS [ June 2005 ]
COULD END ABORTION IN AMERICA IN ONE WEEK
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW08.DOC
US House limits jurisdiction of Federal Courts regarding the Pledge of Allegiance [ July 2006 ]
Employs Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit
the appellate jurisdiction of the US supreme Court:
This same Article III., Section 2. constitutional power of the US Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction
of the US supreme Court can be further applied to protect the God-ordained institution of marriage, to protect
state-level laws banning acts of sodomy, to protect federal and state laws banning abortion, and to protect the
freedom of religious expression that is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, vis-a-vis
public displays of the Ten Commandments, and public prayer in the Name of Jesus.
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CONSTLAW06-01.DOC
JULY 22, 2005 - Yearlong anniversary of House MPA
vote to remove jurisdiction from Supreme Court on DOMA
Today, July 22, is the yearlong anniversary of the 2004 vote by the US House to pass the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313,
108th Congress), removing jurisdiction from the US Supreme Court and the lower federal courts over cases concerning the
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in 1996.
http://christianlifeandliberty.net/CONLAW10.DOC
2) There is NOTHING in Article VI. of the U.S. Constitution that says that Supreme Court decisions are
"the supreme Law of the Land" - they are NOT. It is Roe v. Wade which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The words of the U.S. Constitution say that 1) the Constitution itself, 2) Federal Laws made in pursuance
thereof, and 3) U.S. Treaties, are "the supreme Law of the Land" - Noticeably ABSENT from this list
explicitly spelled out in Article VI. of what the U.S. Constitution itself says is “the supreme Law of the Land”
are U.S. Supreme Court opinions / decisions. They are not “the supreme Law of the Land.” Therefore,
Roe v. Wade is not “the supreme Law of the Land.” The Constitution is ! ***
Supreme Court decisions / opinions are not law. Legislatures make law. Courts decide cases.
Supreme Court decisions / opinions are binding on the parties to a case, as to the particulars of that case.
[ *** Remembering always that God’s Law Is Higher than Man’s Law. e.g., Acts 4:19, Acts 5:29, KJB ]
3) "Abortion is not legal" by Christine Ross and Herbert W. Titus, JD, Life Advocate, May/June 1999.
"What is clearly missing from [ the Article VI. ] Constitutional list of supreme laws is a court opinion.
This was not an oversight. Our constitution's writers knew that a court opinion could never be law;
much less the supreme law of the land. This is especially true if that court opinion contradicted
the Constitution itself."
“As can be plainly seen from the Constitutional text [ i.e., Art. VI. ], a statute enacted by Congress is the
supreme law of the land only if made “pursuant to” (in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute
passed by the people’s representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, then how can
a court opinion decided by unelected judges be given a higher status ?
“When Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review – the right of the court to review a statute
to see if it conformed to the Constitution – he said that the written Constitution was just as binding on the
courts as it was on Congress. Marshall, then, did not establish the supremacy of judges over the
Constitution – but the supremacy of the Constitution over Congress, the President and the courts.”
“Our founding fathers resoundingly rejected the idea of judicial supremacy. They did not empower judges
to usurp a power rightfully belonging to the people and thereby become a law unto themselves. That is why
they put the Constitution in writing – so that the original founding laws and principles would not be mistaken
or forgotten. In this way they believed that the Constitution would become the fixed law of the land.”
"The president takes an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution," not Supreme Court opinions."
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
“Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental
and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that
an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” [ emphasis added ]
“Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the
principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution
is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.” [ emphasis added ]
4) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in 2002, "... there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution
that guarantees the right to an abortion." It is Roe v. Wade which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
5) Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson rejected the notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter
of the Constitution. President Jefferson wrote to a friend (1821): "You seem ... to consider the [ federal ] judges
as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would
place us under the despotism of an oligarchy ... The constitution has erected no such single tribunal [ emphasis
added ], knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would
become despots."
6) President Ronald Reagan issued a Personhood Proclamation (1988), citing as his authority the Declaration of
Independence [ part of the organic law of the United States of America, United States Code Annotated ] and
the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and declaring as President of the U.S.A., "the unalienable
personhood of every American, from the moment of conception until natural death,..." [ emphasis added ]
7) The text of the Roe vs Wade (1973) Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision/opinion itself
reveals the KEY ISSUE is the PERSONHOOD of the "fetus" [ pre-birth human being ]. In the words of
pro-abortion Justice Harry Blackmun, writing in the 7 - 2 Majority Opinion: "If this suggestion of
personhood [emphasis added] is established, the appellant's case [ i.e. the pro-abortion
case ], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically
by the [ 14th ] Amendment." [emphasis added ] [ CCL Note: The right to life is also guaranteed for persons
by the Constitution’s 5th Amendment (Bill of Rights) ]
8) These actual audio excerpts of the second Oral Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade
case (decision published January 22, 1973) - Argued on October 11, 1972 - demonstrate the pivotal importance
of the issue of fetal "personhood" in the tragic outcome of the Roe vs Wade 1973 decision:
(AUDIO) "In Their Own Words" - U.S. Supreme Court
Recognition of unborn children as persons is the "KEY" to overturning Roe v. Wade
http://www.montanaprolifecoalition.org/approach.htm
Conclusion:
Roe vs. Wade is not Constitutional. The Federal Government and each of the 50 States have a Sovereign Duty to Establish Justice, and to Defend the God-given, Unalienable Right to Life of