Abortion and sanctuary cities

From: americanthinker.com,  by Steve Feazel,  on Apr 3, 2017

Abortion can now be stopped in states that no longer want it to take place.  The way for doing it is simple, and we have our liberal-left friends to thank.  Many sanctuary cities and states have shown us the way.

Sanctuary cities simply refuse to obey immigration law and will not turn over apprehended illegal aliens to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  They don’t like the law, so they ignore it in order to protect illegals from being deported.

Any state that has a conservative governor and legislature should just declare itself a sanctuary state for the protection of the unborn.  No abortion would be allowed.  It only makes sense that if a sanctuary city or state can choose the immigration law to ignore and expect no repercussions, a state can be a sanctuary state for the unborn and ignore the prevention of an abortion as being illegal.  This state actually has more solid ground to stand on when logic is applied.

The case that made abortion the law of the land was Roe v. Wade in 1973.  In the ruling, the Court admitted it lacked the expertise to determine when life begins and to certify the personhood of a fetus.  The Court stated in the decision:

[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment… If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case (or Roe’s case) collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

The Court clearly states that if personhood is established, then Roe has no case, and the unborn have all rights covered in the Fourteenth Amendment, which include life.  Can a case for personhood be made?  Absolutely.  A vast majority of states have laws that consider it a double-homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered.  This means that the unborn child is seen as a murder victim just like the mother.  How can one be a victim of a crime and not be a person?

In my home state Ohio, the law reads:

At any stage of pre-natal development, if an “unborn member of the species homo sapiens, who is or was carried in the womb of another” is killed, it is aggravated murder, murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, aggravated vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicide. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 2903.01 to 2903.07, 2903.09 (Anderson 1996 & Supp. 1998).

The medical field supports the case for fetus personhood.  A fetus was discovered to have a tumor on his heart that was serious and life-threatening.  The decision was made to operate and remove the tumor while the baby was still in the womb.  The operation was a success, and the child is a healthy boy now over three years old.

In August of 1999, a photo captivated America.  It was a photo that some liberal media sources chose to ignore.  The image showed the tiny hand of a 21-week-old fetus bent around the finger of the surgeon, Dr. Joseph Burner, who successfully operated at Vanderbilt University on the fetus in the womb to repair a spina bifida lesion.  This fetus was a medical patient.  How can one be a medical patient and not be a person?

A better case can be made for personhood of an unborn child than can be made for illegal immigrants to have a right to protection and access to public services.  So why not sanctuary states that protect the unborn and ignore the right to abortion?  If the left can thumb their noses at immigration laws with sanctuary cities and states, then conservatives should be able to do the same with regard to abortion.

Maybe individuals could get in on this sanctuary strategy.  One could declare his home a sanctuary home and then pick the one law he or she would like to ignore, like maybe paying income tax. Come to think of it, Rev. Al Sharpton seems to have already done this.


What a great comparison. Making a case for sanctuary cities/states to prevent abortions within their boundaries is much easier and I believe, much stronger than trying to justify ignoring federal laws regarding illegal aliens for whatever dubious reasons. Personally, I think that the “sanctuary city” concept is flawed and illegal.

Illegal alien sanctuary jurisdictions don’t like the immigration law so they just don’t obey it – it seems only fair that “abortion sanctuary jurisdictions” should be able to do the same thing – just not obey Roe v. Wade and prohibit abortions – what’s wrong with that logic?

And just think about it – if Obama was still in power, he wouldn’t hesitate to bring the full force of the federal courts against (and withhold funding from) those sanctuary areas to “influence” them to allow abortions, why can’t Trump do the same thing?



Categories: Political

Tags: ,

2 replies

  1. It’s a great concept – one that I’d never thought of before, but as nice as it is, conservatives don’t operate that way. Most of them support our laws, regardless of how terrible some of them are.

    If that were to happen, we’d see the liberals crank up the volume on their whining and personal attacks. They would be calling for fines and defunding of everything conservatives support. Come to think of it – it might be fun to watch the shoe on the other foot for a change!


  2. Sounds perfectly logical to me, Garnet.

    It’s about time we tell the Left either everyone obeys the laws or no one obeys the laws, but we’re not living by one standard while you live by another. Take your pick.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: