Source: http://www.forerunner.com/blog/personhood-florida-and-abortion-abolition
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:52:07+00:00

Document:
By Jay Rogers. Posted February 04, 2019.
The following propositions represent some foundational principles taught to us by Cal Zastrow, co-founder of Personhood USA; Daniel Backer, founder of Personhood Alliance; as well as other state Personhood affiliate leaders. The founding board members of Personhood Florida have held to these principles for many years, even prior to the Personhood movement gaining steam in 2008.
In the words of Cal Zastrow, one of the founders of the Personhood movement, the goal has always been to encourage the states to “ignore Roe.” Here I quote Cal Zastrow in a recent on-line conversation on the topic. I have edited his response for length and clarity.
After we gained ballot-access in Colorado a year later, one other person and I started a national Personhood group. We got amendments and bills introduced in state legislatures while starting ballot-access petition drives, including two more successful ones within a couple of years….
To reiterate the above with greater specifics, the Personhood strategy is the extension of what was laid down in the 1970s with Human Life Amendment efforts by some pro-life organizations and politicians. Several versions of a Human Life Amendment were filed in 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1980 following the Roe v. Wade decision.
One fact that many Personhood advocates have cited correctly is that when Roe was decided, the writer of the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, did state that since a Person has the right to life under the U.S. Constitution, then if the Personhood of a preborn child were established law, then Roe’s case would have collapsed.
The fact that Blackmun spoke of the weakness in Roe’s argument was correct. However, it does not mean that the Supreme Court can nullify God-given human rights any more than the Third Reich could actually redefine a human being as a “non-Jewish Aryan.” The state governors and legislatures never needed to submit to that. It has long been understood that fundamental human rights stated in the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Amendments cannot be reversed by a court decision.
Of course, we would welcome any challenge that might result in the overturning of Roe. However, from the beginning of Personhood Florida in 2009, we have always said that we want the states to use the 5th, 10th and 14th amendments and the doctrine of nullification to counter the Supreme Court.
We do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade. We want to ignore it.
The best chance Personhood has for success is through the doctrine of nullification, that is, state legislators and governors would declare that abortion is already covered under the state’s murder statutes on the basis of the Personhood of the unborn – and then act on that declaration.
Not only do we agree with the strategy of nullification, but as I will show, the Personhood movement was founded on this premise. Furthermore, many of us involved in promoting Personhood initiatives have been advocating the strategy of using state nullification of federal tyranny for 10, 20 and even 30 years.
We must not look to the Supreme Court as the arbiter of “establishing” who is a person. The view of the founders of Personhood is that this is an eternal truth established by God. The right to life is also written as a “self-evident” truth in the Declaration of Independence and repeated several times in the U.S. Constitution. The humanity of the preborn was also recognized by numerous case laws prior to Roe. This case was decided in error and the states never needed to change their laws in subservience to an activist court that has no authority to make laws.
We asked Alaska Right to Life (a.k.a. Personhood Alaska) director, Christopher Kurka, to comment on the doctrine of nullification.
As you know, I have always advocated for state nullification and interposition for Personhood efforts. I first learned about the myth of judicial supremacy, nullification and interposition from Bob Bird (former AKRTL President) during his 2008 campaign for US Senate. Since then I have pushed the ideas, but have never written on them before.
The book by Personhood Alliance, Personhood: The Tree of Life, has a chapter entitled “The Myth of Judicial Supremacy” by Christopher Kurka that deals with the idea of nullification and interposition by the states. The editor of the book, Dan Becker, has stated on numerous occasions that he has advocated for nullification since 1988 as an alternative to overturning Roe.
To return the right to ban abortion at a state level would require the reversal or nullification of the 1973 ruling of Roe v. Wade [emphasis mine]…. Government cannot be allowed the prerogative of claiming to define a right that has never been within its rightful jurisdiction. The right to life comes from God, not government. Personhood is the human rights movement of the 21st century, not an attorney’s playground” (Dan Becker, Personhood, 33,34).
I advocated for ignoring Roe, challenging judicial supremacy and calling on state and local magistrates to interpose – including arresting abortionists and defying not only usurpations by the federal judiciary, but also by legislative and executive branches, up to and including secession over this issue. I was an advocate for this in word and in published articles, public speeches, sermons as early as 1992, and in lobbying and campaigning as early as 1995.
We have also frequently used the example of the Dred Scott v. Sandford Supreme Court decision, which stated in 1957 that a black slave was property and did not have the same right to liberty as an American citizen. Ironically, Dred Scott was never overturned by the Supreme Court. It took a United States’ constitutional amendment to reverse the Dred Scott decision. However, Christians should never say that a court decision or a constitutional amendment was the basis for the right to the liberty of all the people born in America. The right to life and liberty is a God-given right. And on that basis, states have the right to nullify Roe.
We will never stop until our courts or legislatures have reversed or nullified [emphasis mine] this misguided ruling. We do not fear a negative ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. Historically, a bad ruling has in fact served as the very catalyst for change in public policy. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1858, ruled that a black person could not be a citizen under our law…. This adverse ruling did much to fuel to the abolitionist movement; our country engaged in civil war before the law recognized the full Personhood of Blacks. In point of fact, the ruling per se was never reversed. By the same token, we shouldn’t wait on an overturning of Roe v. Wade before engaging in public dialogue. The need for Personhood policy is now, regardless of Roe’s final disposition! Ours is a 21st century human rights movement and must not be summarized by a single legal objective! (Dan Becker, Personhood, 76,77).
The ultimate problem at the time of Roe v. Wade was not the courts, but the liberal (and even some “conservative”) churches that already supported some forms of abortion. If they had been united in opposition against abortion, Roe could have been resisted. From the beginning of the Roe decision, each pro-life group in America has agreed that the ultimate goal is to pass a national Human Life Amendment. If that was not immediately possible, the strategy was to go state-by-state to pass laws and ratify amendments to the state constitutions.
In many of the current Personhood initiatives, the term, “human being,” is used as an accurate expression of the truth that we are made in the image of God.
It has always been understood in constitutional law that the terms, “persons,” “natural persons,” “human beings” and “men” are exactly synonymous. We must not become guilty of the fallacy of making a distinction without a difference. The important truth here is that we are each made in the image of God. Therefore, the right to life and liberty is inviolable without due process of just laws.
The new book, Personhood: The Tree of Life, edited by Dan Becker of Personhood Alliance, does a good job in establishing the biblical definition and basis for Personhood. In summary, the idea of the Personhood of all human beings is bound up in the idea that God created man in His own image. God is three “Persons” – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – in “One God.” This is the doctrine of the Trinity. The way in which God has relationship with man is through the Persons of the Trinity. We are each created in the image of God from the moment of conception – not only as members of the species Homo sapiens – but as a special creation – a unique person made in the image of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity. When we experience salvation, we are adopted as children of the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. We are born-again because the Person of the indwelling of Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. That is why human beings have a special place in creation and may not be wantonly killed with impunity.
It is also insufficient to argue that human beings as a member of the species, Homo sapiens, have the right to life unless we first recognize that human beings are made in God’s own image. Whether they are “persons,” “humans” or “men,” we still need to begin with the idea of the imago Dei.
Although we believe it is useful to use the word, “Person,” due to existing constitutional language, for several years, the Personhood Florida Amendment has used the following language.
The second clause refers to the fact that our own liberal activist Florida Supreme Court has found a “right to abortion” in the Florida state constitution (where none exists). Although this was decided in error, it should not be ignored in subsequent constitutional language. The Personhood Florida amendment would nullify this decision.
In short, we use the both the terms “human being” and “person” because the two are synonyms. We appeal to the authority of God’s Law rather than the Supreme Court. The Florida Personhood amendment states that there is a “God-given right to life.” Although this language is already in our state constitution, ours would be the first amendment to reiterate the name of God in our defense of the preborn and all human beings at any stage of development.
However, these negative sanctions of God’s law are based on the positive commandments God had given from the beginning. These positive laws are otherwise known as the “Creation ordinances” that existed prior to the time that sin entered the world. Murder is prohibited because God made man in His own image (Genesis 1:27; 9:6). Adultery and sexual immorality are prohibited because God ordained marriage from the beginning as one man and one woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:5,6). Theft is prohibited because God from the beginning commanded men as individuals to take dominion of the earth (Genesis 1:28: 9:1; Psalms 8:6), to own and care for the earth and to obtain personal wealth (Genesis 2:5,8; Deuteronomy 8:18). Thus all the negative sanctions of the law flow from the liberties and positive commandments of God that He gave even prior to sin entering the world in the Creation ordinances.
To summarize, the “right to life” has a solid biblical basis and is perfectly suitable as a description of Christian ethics on abortion and all sanctity and dignity of life issues.
Another idea that needs to be addressed is what some of us call the “magic bullet” fallacy. I have heard people say when presenting Personhood that if we pass an amendment recognizing and protecting all human life, that this will automatically end all abortion.
First, a Personhood Amendment would need to be backed up by legislation. Even a constitutional amendment that states all abortion is murder needs corresponding legislation that would either repeal state abortion laws that include exceptions and affirm the criminality of abortion using the same criteria as that for homicide and murder.
Second, passing a Personhood Amendment in one state would necessitate passing identical measures in other states. Ultimately, we would need a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution to protect life in all 50 states. That has always been the goal of the pro-life movement. The difference with Personhood advocates and other pro-life groups is that we have a plan to succeed in at least 38 states by passing a state Personhood Amendment with similar or identical language that would then become the model for a national Human Life Amendment. To ratify such an Amendment would require at least 38 states would have to pass it through their legislatures. The goal of Personhood is not to overturn Roe, but to eventually ratify a Human Life Amendment to the United States Constitution that could not be nullified by any liberal abortion law or court decision.
To win the war, we do not need to overturn Roe. As in the case when Dred Scott was nullified by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, we only need to nullify Roe with a national amendment and in the meantime we can nullify it at the state level. However, we cannot be naïve and assume that Christians are ready to support this at the moment. A great work of education and a great degree of unity toward this cause needs to be achieved first. We have made this one of the primary goals of Personhood.
I was recently asked about Personhood Florida’s position on various “abortion abolition” initiatives and bills in several states throughout the country. Our policy in Personhood Florida is that we endorse bills, initiatives and measures that would defend life without exceptions. Therefore, we support the language of the Florida Abolish Abortion amendment as well as all similar measures throughout the country. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you cannot say you are really for Personhood if you oppose such measures. These measures and bills obviously do not need to originate with Personhood groups in order for us to support them.
Another possible issue with the constitutionality of the Florida Abolish Abortion amendment is that it imposes criminal sanctions on abortion through constitutional language. While we should obviously support criminal penalties for abortion since it is child murder, it is well-known that constitutional law gives state and federal legislatures the authority to legislate and impose sanctions. In the hundreds of pages comprising the Florida constitutional amendments, there is not one amendment that criminalizes anything. It is understood that the legislature must pass corresponding legislation to uphold constitutional law and repeal laws that are unconstitutional. This includes criminalizing illegal acts in compliance with our state constitution.
In short, while there is not necessarily anything that would prohibit criminalizing abortion by constitutional amendment, as the Florida Abolish Abortion initiative attempts to do, there is no precedent for it either. Normally, the language of an amendment directs the legislature to enact laws consistent with the amendment.
The last point to be made is that the Personhood Amendment would be different from all human rights amendments in the history of the Florida Constitution in that it is God-centered. It includes language stating that the right to life of all human beings is “God-given.” This is the same language used in the preamble to our Florida Constitution’s declaration of rights, but is sadly ignored by every single other amendment dealing with human rights. This includes the proposed Florida Abolish Abortion initiative.
It is hoped also that proponents of Personhood reading this will better understand and communicate the goals of Personhood as we move forward to recognize and protect all human life, including abolishing abortion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.