My Kansas Brothers and
Sisters, is the Value Them Both
Amendment in Bleeding Kansas right or wrong? Should Christians vote
for it? It is time to ASSESS THE MATTER.
In Bleeding Kansas, for decades there
have been numerous pro-life bills passed, which have regulated how, when, where,
and so forth killing of the preborn is to be committed under color of law.
These iniquitous bills are opposed by abolitionists as iniquitous, and will
need to repealed when a true bill of abolition is passed into law. However, on
August second of this year, Kansas voters will face an even deeper question on
the ballot. What do we want to engrave into our state constitution concerning
abortion? This is wise to ponder, for however
hard making an amendment to the constitution may be, it is exponentially more
difficult to remove an amendment once inserted.
Abolitionists understand that
there are many who sincerely believe that this is needed and will be good in
Kansas for babies. Therefore when we speak, we must have charity and clarity
and above all verity-the TRUTH. Our intent is to glorify the true and living
God by speaking for truth and justice. Let's consider the amendment, see what
it says, what it does, and what it seeks to establish.
I. What does the VTB
actually say?
Most of the people I have spoken with who support the amendment have not read
it for themselves. So let’s do that,
reading the whole paper:
A PROPOSITION to amend the bill of rights of the
constitution of the state of Kansas by adding a new section thereto stating
that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and reserving to the people
the ability to regulate abortion through the elected members
of the legislature of the state of Kansas. WHEREAS, This proposition to amend
the bill of rights of the constitution of the state of Kansas shall be known
and may be cited as the Value Them Both Amendment. Now, therefore: Be it
resolved by the Legislature of the State of Kansas, two-thirds of the members
elected (or appointed) and qualified to the House of Representatives and
two-thirds of the members elected (or appointed) and qualified to the Senate
concurring therein:
Section 1. The following proposition to amend the constitution
of the state of Kansas shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the
state for their approval or rejection: The bill of rights of the constitution
of the state of Kansas is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as
follows: "
§ Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both
women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require
government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to
abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the
people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may
pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that
account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or
circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother."
Section 2. The following statement shall be printed on the
ballot with the amendment as a whole:
"Explanatory statement. The Value Them Both Amendment would
affirm there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the
government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas,
through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to
regulate abortion, including, but not limited to, in circumstances of
pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of
the mother.
"A vote for the Value Them Both Amendment would affirm
there is no Kansas constitutional right to abortion or to require the
government funding of abortion, and would reserve to the people of Kansas,
through their elected state legislators, the right to pass laws to
regulate abortion.
"A vote against the Value Them Both Amendment would make no
changes to the constitution of the state of Kansas, and could restrict the
people, through their elected state legislators, from regulating
abortion by leaving in place the recently recognized right to
abortion."
Now we have read what the VTB
Amendment says.
II. What does the VTB do
with abortion? While the amendment says that
abortion is not a right in the state constitution, it also tells us what they
want to do with abortion. REGULATE IT.
Five times the word regulate, regulating,
or regulation is found in the whole paper, the introduction,
the amendment itself, and the explanation. There is no wording that conveys the
idea that the amendment gives space for abortion to be abolished, only regulated.
Consider the following
terminology of the actual amendment (the portion which would be in the state
constitution):
§ Regulation of abortion. Because Kansans value both
women and children, the constitution of the state of Kansas does not require
government funding of abortion and does not create or secure a right to
abortion. To the extent permitted by the constitution of the United States, the
people, through their elected state representatives and state senators, may
pass laws regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, laws that
account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or
circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother."
“Regulation of abortion.” - The heading for the VTB is Regulation
of abortion. What is abortion? It is homicide. The intentional premeditated killing of an
individual human. Murder. Regulating homicide as if it is “healthcare”
(even unsavory healthcare that we don’t approve of) is unjust and
unjustifiable. It is not true telling
about, nor true treatment of abortion. Yet, regulation is what this amendment
is all about. This amendment is for
making laws to regulate the murder of a people group under color of law, rather
than to protect that people group under the law from murder.
“Because Kansans value both
women and children…” -
This is the basis for the name of the amendment: “The Value Them Both”
amendment. Yet, this amendment is NOT valuing women and children equally. It does not secure equal protection AT ALL
for children, as the rest of the amendment makes clear. It perpetuates
partiality, which God hates. He says
that we are to have NO respect of persons.
Deuteronomy 1:16-17 “And I
charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your
brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the
stranger that is with him. 17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye
shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face
of man; for the judgment is God's...”
James 2:1,4,8-9 “My brethren,
have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of
persons. ... 4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of
evil thoughts? ... 8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture,
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect
to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”
(Exodus 23:2-3,6-7; Psalm 82;
Psalm 119:126-128, Isaiah 10:1-2; Jeremiah 22:3). So the Value Them Both
Amendment fails to value them both, and the rest of the amendment bears this
out. Let’s go on.
“…the constitution of the state
of Kansas does not require government funding of abortion and does not create
or secure a right to abortion…” - What if there had been a proposed wording for the Kansas
state constitution back during the question of slavery at our beginnings as a
state, that said, “Because Kansans value both slave holders and slaves” and
went on to say that they were not saying that slavery was a right in Kansas,
nor that the state government would give funding to slave holders to get
slaves, but that they would secure the right to regulate how slaves were to be
treated in Kansas, in what circumstances you could rape your slave woman or
whip your slave if you had a mind to in Kansas, or wait a certain amount of
days before you could tear a child from the arms of your slaves and sell the
baby or parent away in Kansas?
Could Christians, or any honest
person really consistently say that it was “valuing them both”? Jesus commands us to love our neighbors as
ourselves. That “as ourselves” gives the
required level. What is that level, what
is that plain? Give them the same
protection we enjoy and expect for ourselves. That is, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE
LAW. Anything less is partiality,
respect of persons, and iniquity before God.
To say that we value both of two
groups, and so we are establishing the right to regulate how, when, where, why,
and in what circumstances we will let one group murder the other group is
hypocritical on a heinous homicidal level. To my mind, VTB fits better as
standing for “Violence to Babies” than “Value Them Both”.
“To the extent permitted by the
constitution of the United States,” - This wording exposes the false narrative that is embraced by
the ProLife Movement, that Roe v Wade is the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution, just like the Kansas
State Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to commit murder against
babies. If they did, we would be bound
to defy and obey God’s higher Law, which states “Thou shalt do NO murder”
(Matthew 19:18). However, both the
National Constitution and the State Constitution recognize the right to life,
to equal justice, etc., for mankind, humans in general. This amendment’s wording is treating the idea
that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v Wade (and subsequent declarations),
allowing a “right to abortion”, it is treating it as if it were
constitutional. That is false. The Supreme Court is dead wrong in this. They were wrong about slavery, and they are
wrong now. When they violated the law of
the land (constitution) and the higher law of God, they were the ones who were
unconstitutional. They have NO authority
to say that murder is okay. As Rusty
Thomas says, “Roe v Wade is the LIE, not the law of the land.” And courts don’t make laws. But the Pro-Life Movement has believed for
decades that we must bow to the courts and fit within their parameters. As Wesley Thomas and Bradley Pierce have
said, “The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being.”
So the fact is, the only
constitutional legislation about abortion that would truly be in accordance to
the U.S. and Kansas Constitutions would be a bill that establishes “equal
justice, protection from murder for the preborn just as for the born.” And that would be a bill of abolition.
“the people, through their
elected state representatives and state senators, may pass laws
regarding abortion,” -
Do the people of Kansas or the legislators who represent them, have the right
to regulate murder? NO. They do have the right and DUTY to secure
equal protection for those targeted for murder by abortion.
“may pass laws regarding
abortion,” –
This phrase may be construed by some to mean that perhaps a bill to outlaw
abortion could fit. However, it is not standing alone. Right afterwards, come
express situations of exception that do not square with that interpretation. It
does not say that the Kansas legislature may pass laws to abolish or do away
with abortion.
Summing up the 2nd
question: So what does the Amendment want to do about abortion? The volume of
the whole Proposition is saying that regulation is the focus and intent.
1. In the introduction: “and reserving to the
people the ability to regulate abortion through the elected
members of the legislature of the state of Kansas.”
2. In the title of the amendment: “Regulation
of abortion.”
3. In the explanation statement on the ballot:
“would reserve to the people of Kansas, through their elected state legislators,
the right to pass laws to regulate abortion”
4. In the summary of what a yes or no vote is
interpreted to mean:
YES “would reserve to the people
of Kansas, through their elected state legislators, the right to pass
laws to regulate abortion.”
NO “could restrict the people,
through their elected state legislators, from regulating abortion by
leaving in place the recently recognized right to abortion.”
It is in the light of all of
those that we must see the intent in the wording “…may pass laws regarding
abortion …” The laws are understood to be laws regulating the practice of
murder by abortion.
“including, but not limited to,
laws that account for circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest,
or circumstances of necessity to save the life of the mother.” – Now some
have pointed out
the wording of the amendment “may pass laws…including, but not limited to…” and
then the particular situations listed, thinking that it perhaps could be read
to say that a law that would outlaw abortion in cases of rape, incest, or
danger to the life of the mother could be passed. They surmise that hopefully it could allow
even a bill of abolition. Again, we do
not want to misinterpret the messaging. I
can comprehend the caution and question here.
However, from the wording and the past record, strategy, and mindset of
the Pro-Life Movement, it must be confessed that the intent is that it is
speaking of laws allowing abortion in those circumstances,
not outlawing abortion in those circumstances. Pro-Life
lobbyists, leaders, and legislators are the ones writing in those exceptions
into their bills. Pro-Life presidents
openly have stated that those are the cases where they think abortions should
be permitted. This
wording is simply giving one of the most common component of standard Pro-Life
regulatory legislation: that of writing in those exceptions in which abortion
will be allowed.
III. What does the VTB establish?
What will be the fruit of putting this into
the Constitution law of Kansas? It will
establish partiality against the preborn, legitimize wicked opinions and
iniquitous decrees, and preclude the most oppressed, marginalized, and murdered
people group in our society today from the rights recognized to all humans in
general given by our Creator and professed by our state.
Psalm 119:128 “Therefore I
esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every
false way.”
Abortion must be abolished, not
regulated.
