On the Issues: Right To Life

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.

-US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification. Therefore, it is my conviction that the duty extends to securing and safeguarding the lives of the pre-born, whose life begins at conception.

In the next few paragraphs, I shall share my position on this controversial issue and then what the law demands.

Personally, I fully support a woman's right of choice, however, in most cases this choice was made at the time of conception. Taking the life of an innocent merely because it inconveniences the lifestyle of the parents is an unconscionable act. The parents had the freedom to risk pregnancy and should take responsiblity for their choices. An exception should exist in those cases where the mother's life is endangered, incest occurs, or the choice was taken from the mother during a rape. In these cases, the mother is left a decision such as whether or not the life of an innocent child must be taken for the crimes of the father.

Strictly based on the US Constitution, this is a matter for the states to decide. In an act of judicial activism, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mother has the right to terminate an unborn child(Roe v. Wade) on the grounds that it violates a constitutional right to privacy.

Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who disagreed with the opinion, wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

Fellow Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist added the following:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.

From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Even according to judges sitting on the US Supreme Court at the time of the case, the court clearly overreached its authority and usurped rights from the states. For this reason, I support any reasonable initiative that returns authority in this matter back to the states - Constitutional Amendment or the appointment of Supreme Court Judges who will respect the letter and intent of our US Constitution.

By returning the matter back to the states, there will inevitably be some states that will embrace abortion and others that will abolish it. Regardless of the stance a given state takes, this is a matter that must be addressed legislatively rather than through judicial activism.

On the Issues:

I support legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.
I oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research expanding human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells beyond that from neo-natal cord tissues which does not harm unborn children.
I support contraceptive research, adoption programs, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing as well as a woman's right to use contraception.
I condemn any practice of forced steriliztion of welfare recipients, the mentally retarded, or "genetically defective."
I support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws.
I oppose laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.
Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions. Under no circumstances may federal fund any organization that advocates, encourages, or participates in the practice of abortion.
I affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
I support legislation that would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.
I support making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime.
I oppose legislation permitting partial-birth abortion except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. 'Partial-Birth Abortion' refers to a late-term abortion method which induces a breech delivery and crushes the fetal skull during the delivery process. This procedure is banned in 24 states, but pro-choice advocates have sought to overturn state laws with a federal ruling.
I support legislation that would prohibit the federal, state, and local governments that receive federal funding from descriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services.
I support the expansion of the existing "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures.

Death with Dignity

I support allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to mentally-competent, terminally-ill patients. This decision, however, must be the choice of the patient and not a third-party. The only exception would be in the case of a power of attorney or living will explicitly covering this topic.
The reason for making such a choice is up to the individual; this may include avoidance of long-term suffering, an intolerable quality of life, or the depletion of a family's life savings during the prolonged treatment of a terminal illness as examples.
No doctor should be compelled to prescribe life-ending medication where he or she objects to the process for personal reasons.
I would criminalize actions that would serve to coerce or inappropriately influence a patient to seek life-ending medication.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the ultimate act of infringing on the liberty of another - their right to life. However, in some cases, it is clear that capital punishment is the only means to guarantee a criminal will not further deprive another of their right to life and liberty. I support capital punishment only in the most extreme cases where a confessed criminal clearly cannot be otherwise made to stop engaging in capital crimes or in the case of treason.
In all but the most severe of offenses, I support life sentences without the possibility of parole rather than capital punishment. While not cruel, the accomodations provided to these prisoners should be kept to a minimum to ensure it is punishment, a deterrent, and a minimal expense to the taxpayers who have already been harmed by the convicted criminal.
I oppose the unfair application of the death pentalty to certain segments of our society. The death penalty is disproporationately applied to minorities and the impoverished.
I oppose attempts by medical associations to indefinitely postpone executions by claiming medical participation is a breach of the hippocratic oath. The oath states "to please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause death." Since the role of the doctor is to monitor the criminal, confirm death, and to minimize suffering, this is not a direct conflict. Further, with these associations promoting the termination of innocent children in the form of abortion, there is little moral highground here. No individual doctor should be forced to participate in capital punishment if it is against his or her beliefs.

Home
Main Menu Home About Will The Issues The 2nd District News and Events Contact Us Get Involved Contribute Links and Resources MySpace Page Facebook Profile Candidate Profile Team Liberty Content Management	Right To Life On The Issues Government Reform Election Reform Energy Independence Foreign Policy Taxation National Defense Rights and Liberties Nanny Government Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech Right to Bear Arms Right to Life Right to Privacy Social and Domestic Issues Agriculture Crime and Violence Drug Issues Education and School Choice Environment Family Budget Healthcare Housing Immigration & Border Security Marriage and Family Poverty and Welfare Social Security and Retirement Technology & Infrastructure Communications Internet Other Technologies 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. -US Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. No government may legalize the taking of the unalienable right to life without justification. Therefore, it is my conviction that the duty extends to securing and safeguarding the lives of the pre-born, whose life begins at conception. In the next few paragraphs, I shall share my position on this controversial issue and then what the law demands. Personally, I fully support a woman's right of choice, however, in most cases this choice was made at the time of conception. Taking the life of an innocent merely because it inconveniences the lifestyle of the parents is an unconscionable act. The parents had the freedom to risk pregnancy and should take responsiblity for their choices. An exception should exist in those cases where the mother's life is endangered, incest occurs, or the choice was taken from the mother during a rape. In these cases, the mother is left a decision such as whether or not the life of an innocent child must be taken for the crimes of the father. Strictly based on the US Constitution, this is a matter for the states to decide. In an act of judicial activism, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a mother has the right to terminate an unborn child(Roe v. Wade) on the grounds that it violates a constitutional right to privacy. Supreme Court Justice Byron White, who disagreed with the opinion, wrote: I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court. Fellow Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist added the following: To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter." Even according to judges sitting on the US Supreme Court at the time of the case, the court clearly overreached its authority and usurped rights from the states. For this reason, I support any reasonable initiative that returns authority in this matter back to the states - Constitutional Amendment or the appointment of Supreme Court Judges who will respect the letter and intent of our US Constitution. By returning the matter back to the states, there will inevitably be some states that will embrace abortion and others that will abolish it. Regardless of the stance a given state takes, this is a matter that must be addressed legislatively rather than through judicial activism. On the Issues: I support legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception. I oppose the funding and legalization of bio-research expanding human embryonic or pre-embryonic cells beyond that from neo-natal cord tissues which does not harm unborn children. I support contraceptive research, adoption programs, comprehensive family life education, and policies that support healthy childbearing as well as a woman's right to use contraception. I condemn any practice of forced steriliztion of welfare recipients, the mentally retarded, or "genetically defective." I support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws. I oppose laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions. Under no circumstances may federal fund any organization that advocates, encourages, or participates in the practice of abortion. I affirm both the authority and duty of Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in all cases of abortion in accordance with the US Constitution, Article III, Section 2. I support legislation that would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. I support making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. I oppose legislation permitting partial-birth abortion except in cases where the mother's life is threatened. 'Partial-Birth Abortion' refers to a late-term abortion method which induces a breech delivery and crushes the fetal skull during the delivery process. This procedure is banned in 24 states, but pro-choice advocates have sought to overturn state laws with a federal ruling. I support legislation that would prohibit the federal, state, and local governments that receive federal funding from descriminating against health care providers, health insurers, health maintenance organizations, and any other kind of health care facility, organization or plan, that decline to refer patients for, pay for or provide abortion services. I support the expansion of the existing "conscience clause" that protects physician training programs that refuse to provide training for abortion procedures. Death with Dignity I support allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to mentally-competent, terminally-ill patients. This decision, however, must be the choice of the patient and not a third-party. The only exception would be in the case of a power of attorney or living will explicitly covering this topic. The reason for making such a choice is up to the individual; this may include avoidance of long-term suffering, an intolerable quality of life, or the depletion of a family's life savings during the prolonged treatment of a terminal illness as examples. No doctor should be compelled to prescribe life-ending medication where he or she objects to the process for personal reasons. I would criminalize actions that would serve to coerce or inappropriately influence a patient to seek life-ending medication. Capital Punishment Capital punishment is the ultimate act of infringing on the liberty of another - their right to life. However, in some cases, it is clear that capital punishment is the only means to guarantee a criminal will not further deprive another of their right to life and liberty. I support capital punishment only in the most extreme cases where a confessed criminal clearly cannot be otherwise made to stop engaging in capital crimes or in the case of treason. In all but the most severe of offenses, I support life sentences without the possibility of parole rather than capital punishment. While not cruel, the accomodations provided to these prisoners should be kept to a minimum to ensure it is punishment, a deterrent, and a minimal expense to the taxpayers who have already been harmed by the convicted criminal. I oppose the unfair application of the death pentalty to certain segments of our society. The death penalty is disproporationately applied to minorities and the impoverished. I oppose attempts by medical associations to indefinitely postpone executions by claiming medical participation is a breach of the hippocratic oath. The oath states "to please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause death." Since the role of the doctor is to monitor the criminal, confirm death, and to minimize suffering, this is not a direct conflict. Further, with these associations promoting the termination of innocent children in the form of abortion, there is little moral highground here. No individual doctor should be forced to participate in capital punishment if it is against his or her beliefs.
Paid for by the Adkins For Congress Committee. Copyright © 2012, Adkins For Congress Committee. SummitCMS Web Platform © 2001-2012, First Summit Group, LLC. Last Updated: September 9, 2008