« 上一頁繼續 »
is the sine qua non for all other rights—the right to life has ceased to exist. It is said that “this could not happen”—I would recall that, unlike the slave and the Indian, the unborn child has continuously—until January 22, 1973been afforded the protection of the law and our courts “in every instance and for all purposes where it is for the benefit of the unborn child”.
I have taken a great deal of your time Mr. Senator and I am grateful for your attention. Hopefully history will not record that while our Nation languished with the tragedy of Watergate and debated the effect which that occurrance and subsequent proceedings would have on the future of constitutional law and the real threat and the fatal blow was going largely ignoredyou in your hearings on the Human Life Amendments stand at a most critical juncture in our history.
I am writing to make myself available to you and the subcommittee at the future hearing dealing with the law on this issue. For your review in evaluating my potential for making a meaningful contribution to your work I am enclosing two published papers which I have written as well as a few selected news clippings which will help explain my activities. [Two additional sets with signed copies of this letter are also enclosed for distribution as you may desire.]
I am presently Assistant Attorney General of Ohio and can be contacted through my office at the State Office Tower, Columbus, Ohio 43215, telephone 1-614-466–5414. My appearance, if that would be your desire, would be as a concerned citizen and as an attorney and not as a representative of that office. Because of my concern for the critical nature of this issue I would be happy to use my vacation time to permit my release from duties with the State of Ohio for the time required for attendance. If you will conclude that I might be of assistance to the committee I would appreciate as much notice as possible so as to afford me the opportunity to prepare testimony worthy of the honor of appearing. It will also be necessary for me to secure assistance in the financing of such a trip therefore the more advance notice the better-if the subcommittee has a budget to assist witnesses appearing that would be appreciated. Most sincerely,
Donald Lynn Billman
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW" The Law & The Little Unborn Baby
by Donald L. Billman, J.D.
The phrase "Equal Justice Under Law" is etched deep in the granite above the United States Supreme Court Building, Washington D.C., and has existed as long as the Constitution to serve as the basis from which our legal system springs JUSTICE. Perhaps at no other time in our history has the future of this guiding principle been so severely challenged. Whether this will be a legal maxim or merely an assortment of shallow words may well be decided in the days ahead.
The concept of justice does not mean that laws will protect some while exposing others to harm. The law which has continually protected the Little Unborn Baby's interest in all areas has now been disregarded in protecting his most basic right - his right to live. All courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, are on record in affirming the duty of the powerful state to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Courts regularly protect the indigent, the mentally handicapped, the accused criminal and others who occupy a position which prevents them from protecting themselves.
It is no mere accident that the Supreme Court has never ruled that the Little Unborn Baby's life may not be taken this is because it has long been assumed that laws restrict. ing the performance of the operation known as abortion were designed to protect the helpless unborn child. It was, has been, and is recognized that the operation termed abortion is unlike any other medical procedure - this is because it involves the taking of a human life — therefore, the regulating of the performance of such a procedure is not only within the authority of the state but it is incumbent upon it in the form of a duty to regulate such a medical operation.
The legal interest of the Little Unborn Baby, which has continuously been protected, include all major areas of law - property, tort, and equity. Courts and statutes have consistently held that an unborn child can inherit from his father who he may never see if that father is taken by death before the child's birth. The courts protect the unborn baby's property by appointing a "guardian ad litem" to protect the portion of the deceased person's estate belonging to the unborn child. The unborn baby can even inherit from his mother who may be taken by death before the baby's birth. This situation arises when a woman with child is, for example, struck by a car and killed. Upon arriving at the hospital following such an accident, medical procedure requires that the doctor who pronounces the woman dead examine her and upon noting that she is pregnant will perform a Caesarean section in an attempt to free the living child from his dead mother. When the child survives such a tragedy — which has taken his mother - that child will inherit from the estate of his deceased mother — even though the child was “unborn" when the mother died.
Possibly the most convincing illustration of how the courts protect the Little Unborn Baby is in those instances when a court must order that a woman be given blood transfusion against her will to save the life of her unborn child. This situation commonly arises among those of the religious faith known as Jehovah's Witnesses, whose teachings torbid the giving or receiving of blood transfusions. Most notably courts in New Jersey and Illinois have ruled that blood transfusions would be given to a woman who is pregnant and because of hemorrhaging needed that blood to sus. tain her life and the life of her unborn child. The courts are quick to point out that the woman's right to practice her religion under the First Amendment of the Constitution and her right to privacy under the Ninth Amendment are sacred rights and that the court would affirm her argument based on these rights were they not being weighed against the life of an innocent unborn child. The courts point out that the right to life is the fundamental right under the Constitution, without which all other rights are meaningless.
Thus what has been attacked is not only a segment of our society, but also the Constitution. Were this attempt to establish the right of one person to take the life of another – successful, a most powerful precedent would have been established for the proposition that there is no "right to life." The basic right to live would then be viewed as a "grant" or "privilege” received from the state and therefore one which could be withdrawn at any time.
The actual argument put forth by those advocating "abortion on demand" is that the Little Unborn Baby's life is not "meaningful" - therefore his life may be taken. It should be recalled that this argument was used to exterminate or reduce to slavery those who disagreed with the Nazi regime in Germany. The United States has a constitution which some say would prevent such a thing ever happening in this country. The writer would point out to you that not only are we attempting to do exactly that same atrocious act today in the form of "abortion on demand" type legislation, but that we have done it before. Two sad pages out of the history of this country record those occurances — the first was the “Indian” who could be killed or imprisoned in complete disregard for the Constitutional protection afforded persons because it was said that he was not a "person” – he was a "savage". The same fate befell the “Negro," for he was not a “person" he was a "slave."
We are now recording a third such shameful page in our history books. During these days in which many give voice to the importance of civil rights for the "Indian" and the "Negro", we see some of the same "civil rights activists" arguing that the right to abort – to kill — one's child is the right of every woman. It is not this writer's intention to here question the sincerity of these people, yet the writer would be less than negligent if he did not observe that were the "abortion on demand” movement successful no one would henceforth have any "civil rights."
That some intend to change the structure of our society by altering so as to effectively destroy the Constitution is beyond doubt by this writer. Such a future, where there is no constitution as we now have, has already been prophesied by Adxley Huxley in his book "BRAVE NEW WORLD" and George Orwell in his book “1984." These two authors speak of a future "UTOPIA” in which "the state” has complete control over all persons. Such a time as "1984" would not be possible until and unless the Constitution of the United States is destroyed. A word of caution, do not classify those who seek to establish "abortion on demand” so as to effectively destroy the right to life as "Communist." They are, in most likelihood, no such thing but are in fact citizens of the United States who, because of their “education" and own misguided belief in their own infallibility, believe that they know best how others should live. The state in "BRAVE NEW WORLD” and “1984” was made up of just such individuals who feel that the common people are incapable of regulating their own lives. If the Constitution of the United States should be destroyed the responsibility for that act will rest with all the people. Those who blindly endorse "abortion on demand" as a "cure-all” to the problems which this nation now faces are acting in a negligent manner which cannot exist side by side with the responsibility which is a part of citizenship in a free society.
The attack on the Constitutional "right to life" was directed against the Little Unborn Baby not by accident, but because he is so helpless and powerless to defend himself - he cannot thank, pay, or vote for his defenders. To sit by doing nothing while a segment of our society is exterminated is to contribute to that day when our conduct and behavior will be regulated by the state. The right of a woman and her doctor to kill the “unborn baby' is no more a "right” than the frontiersman had a "right" to kill a "savage" or a plantation owner had the "right" to kill his "slaves."
The issue of whether the life of the Little Unborn Baby may be taken without "due process of law” and without affording him the "equal protection of the laws” as required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution will soon be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision of those Nine Distinguished Judges may well foretell the future of the Constitution and therefore the future of all claiming protection under that Document and her Flag. That decision will be the result of the efforts of many — the attorneys who defend the Little Unborn Baby, the legislators who write the laws and the people, and how they respond to this issue, will have their influence in their own unique way. These nine men, as they enter the Supreme Court Building on that day, will pass under that inscription which reads "Equal Justice Under Law" and when they leave that great center of law the future of those words will be firmly established whether they are mere words or the guiding principle for our society.