Legislative Rape

“Legislative findings regarding abortion.—

(1) The Legislature acknowledges that all persons are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that first among these is their right to life.

(2) The Legislature finds that all human life comes from the Creator, has an inherent value that cannot be quantified by man, and begins at conception.

(3) The Legislature finds that the United States Constitution expresses no qualification for, or limitation on, the protection of human life by laws passed by state legislatures which regard human life as the most fundamental gift from God and deserving of paramount importance among all other unalienable rights expressed or implied in the United States Constitution.

(4) The Legislature finds that personal liberty is not a license to kill an innocent human life under any provision of the United States Constitution.

(5) The Legislature finds that once human life begins, there is a compelling state interest in protecting the natural course of its development from that moment through birth. Any act of a person detrimental to an unborn human life, when not necessary in defense of the life of the mother bearing such unborn life, which unnaturally terminates that unborn life, is a deprivation of that unborn child's unalienable right to life.”

The above is part of the text of Bill HB 395 introduced by Florida Representative Van Zant and co-sponsored by Ahern; Baxley; Broxson; Gaetz; Grant; Ingram; La Rosa; Mayfield; Patronis; Perry; Pigman; Raburn; Stone in Florida's State Congress in an effort to ban abortion.

When Van Zant claims that “The Legislature acknowledges that all persons are endowed by their Creator,” he is assuming that every single legislator believes in God, this might or might not be true but since only 14 legislators, including Van Zant, are sponsoring this bill and there are 160 legislators in Florida State Congress we don't really know. He also assumes that all Legislators believe that life begins at conception, and we don’t know that either. On that same sentence, he mentions that life is amongst the first “unalienable rights” but makes no mention whatsoever about the pursue of happiness or liberty. It seems that we don’t have the freedom (liberty) to pursuit happiness if our happiness interferes with the Right Wingers’ point of view.

Van Zant claims that the Constitution of the United States “express no qualification for, or limitation on, the protection of human life by laws passes by state legislature which regard human life as the most fundamental gift from God and deserving of paramount importance among all other unalienable rights expressed or implied in the United States Constitution.” If such statement is true, why do we have the death penalty in the State of Florida and in many other States in the Union? Are we allowed to pick and choose who can die and who can’t? Is that life, if unwanted by society, a gift from "God" that we can get rid of but, if unwanted by the carrier (mother) then is a gift that must be kept? Who anointed these legislators with a direct line to Nature’s God?

There is only one instance where the word “LIFE” is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and that’s on Amendment V and in the Constitution you will find it on the last paragraph of Article III, Section 3, that’s the one and only instance.

“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 are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The above text, which is engraved in all of our memories and which moves us because of its conviction, it’s not and it has never been part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or any other document other than the Declaration of Independence. I’m really surprised of how many legislators – who think they are so smart as to know exactly when life begins – do not know this and if they do, they are purposely misconstruing the sentence to confuse the ignorant people that cannot differentiate between The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights.

The Declaration of Independence is a document that was written by the Founding Fathers enumerating the reasons why the colonies were severing their ties with England. The documents that gave the citizens of the new independent nation their unalienable rights were the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Neither one of these documents grants anyone the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness; those are rights that we all want to have, but must be obtained by each individual and not provided by the government. In other words, it’s a right that we must earn and fight for. Government must not obstruct, deny, interfere or prohibit a person from obtaining them but it is not up to the government to dictate what life, liberty or happiness means for each and every individual of this or any other country. Government must not impose on each individual their perception of liberty or happiness as each and every person on this planet has a different vision of what this might be. And government should not impose their religious views on the people.

Van Zant persists in claiming that personal liberty is part of the Constitution and decided to add that such personal liberty does not gives anyone license to kill an innocent human life under any provision of the Constitution. He is right, because nowhere in the Constitution are any of these words mentioned, neither is the distinction of “innocent” mentioned in any of the historical documents mentioned above. If such words were part of any of these documents, then the government of the United States and some of the States of this great nation of ours have been ignoring it when they, to this very day, continue to sentence people to death – and we all know that not every human being that has been killed by the States were guilty of any crime… DNA has proven this repeatedly.

Van Zant fails to accept and recognize that there is a separation of Church and State; if he wants to preach… I suggest he does that at his church and leave the rest of us alone.

“The Legislature finds that once human life begins, there is a compelling state interest in protecting the natural course of its development from that moment through birth. Any act of a person detrimental to an unborn human life, when not necessary in defense of the life of the mother bearing such unborn life, which unnaturally terminates that unborn life, is a deprivation of that unborn child's unalienable right to life.”

That sentence is the most truthful sentence throughout the bill. It clearly says and mentions what is sacred for people like Van Zant: The Embryo. It says clearly that their interest is protecting the natural course of “its development from that moment (fertilization/conception) through birth,” the Right Wing stops caring once the fetus is born. Their focus of interest is the fetus while it’s in the womb, because it is that fetus that allows these sexually obsessed men to feel superior by imposing, controlling and subjugating women to their power. It’s legislative rape, the ONLY rape where there will never be a risk of getting pregnant by the rapist, but where a woman gets raped by a mob hiding behind the safety of Congress; a rape perpetrated in the name of god.