Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

State legislatures are about to start up again in a couple of weeks. For Jesus this Birthday, show them how they can outlaw abortion in a way that courts can’t stop them.

This article is written so all you have to do is copy the part below this paragraph on to both sides of a single sheet, add the names of your state legislators, your return address and other contact information, and any changes you want to make, and email and probably also snail mail it to them. Start with your own, who represent your district. If they respond with questions I can help you answer, email me at [email protected] or call me at 515-480-3398.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Honorable _______,

There is a way our state legislature can pass a law stopping abortion that can survive the courts, without waiting long years for more Supreme Court changes or Personhood laws. Will you help?

Fundraising letters for decades have said we need a law or constitutional amendment “establishing” that all unborn babies are humans/persons from conception, because that is what Roe v. Wade said must happen for abortion’s legality to “collapse”.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

But did you know that fact has already been established by the consensus of all five categories of court-recognized finders of facts – juries, judges, expert witnesses, state legislatures, and Congress?

That evidence will “court-proof” a law challenging legal abortion if it is in the “findings of facts” in the introduction to the law. Without that, even prolife lawmakers will correctly avoid the bill as a waste of time, “knowing” it has no chance in court anyway. Embedding the argument in the bill will also force the state’s Attorney General, who will defend the law in court, to include that argument in his defense. This is especially critical where his prolife commitment is in doubt.

It will also make that evidence part of the news coverage of the bill as the bill progresses past legislative deadlines. Enough public understanding of this evidence will force judges to address it.

The bill’s “Findings of Facts” might read something like this:

Findings of Facts: This state finds itself obligated by the 14th Amendment “equal protection of the laws” to protect the Right to Life of all unborn babies, since the fact that all unborn babies at all stages of gestation are humans and persons has been established unanimously, by all five categories of court-recognized fact finders – juries, expert witnesses, individual judges, state legislatures, and Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d).

No American legal authority has ever said any unborn baby is not a human/person or that “life begins” any later than conception, including Roe which said “we are not in a position to speculate” – which is the closest the Supreme Court ever came to a position.

This state finds that the Supreme Court accepts Congress’ authority to find facts that are not “clearly erroneous”, that the practical necessity of different penalties in different situations for the same harm never indicates that some people are not “persons in the whole sense”, and there is no legal disconnect between “humans” and “persons” in law or in Roe, which says “a ‘person’ came into being” when a baby is “recognizably human”. Babies can’t be any more “recognizably human” than for the consensus of legal authorities to recognize them as human.

This consensus requires this state to criminalize abortion, as Roe v. Wade says the 14th Amendment requires. This state’s liability from noncompliance with the Constitution is greater than any liability from acting in advance of a confused Supreme Court.

Outlawing abortion needn’t wait for more evidence to be established. More “personhood” laws can’t “establish” any fact any more than the uncontested consensus of every court-recognized authority which has ever ruled on the matter. If the Supreme Court is still “not in a position to speculate as to…when life begins”, after all that evidence, the justices are incapable of knowing anything.

(Summary of the legal facts claimed here: see “Model Senate Resolution” at Legal brief with lots of detail which the Supreme Court voted on June 15 not to hear: A model defense of a state law before the U.S. Supreme Court:

The law tested must have penalties for abortion, or courts will say review of the restriction of abortion is not yet “ripe”, as O’Conner explained in Webster.

Two things are needed to force judges to squarely address that overwhelmingly “established” fact: a case that turns on that fact, and enough public understanding of the issue to vote out, or impeach, for imbecility or insanity, judges who still say they can’t tell if it’s murder, or murder doesn’t matter.

That means prolifers can’t be divided. As long as the public remains ignorant or even unsure about the legal argument, because only a few prolifers explain it, judges can get away with dodging the argument by substituting a ridiculous parody of it that is much easier to refute. Judges feel no pressure to honestly address arguments which only a few Republicans and no Democrats care about.

Prolife division has allowed state courts for 45 years to turn Roe’s alleged inability to answer a question into a constitutional requirement that evidence must never be allowed to answer it. Roe said the opposite: that “of course” if it is “established” (by evidence) that abortion really is murder, states have to outlaw it. The Supreme Court has dodged that issue ever since, and will, until prolifers unite.

Laws about heartbeats, brain waves, parental consent, selling bodies, medical standards etc. only require courts to decide if they are compatible with legal abortion. Our case must ask if legal abortion is compatible with the reality that abortion murders humans/persons.

The criteria for how thoroughly our bill should criminalize every kind of baby killing is whichever version can attract the most cosponsors – so long as it incorporates that legal argument. Prosecuting murder where no body can be produced, and where there isn’t even certainty whether anyone died after conception, is a very different legal and evidentiary situation than killing an adult, and will require much debate and creativity. That debate should not be allowed to stall outlawing  easier-to-prosecute abortions so that we can force courts to address the core issue and rule Roe invalid, after which such debate will flow naturally and will address all forms of baby killing.

What makes the bill startling is that the simplistic impatience of the general population with prolifers comes down to “but abortion is LEGAL.” We prove that abortion is not legal, after all. It is legally recognizable as genocide, by Roe’s own order. State supreme courts have patently misstated Roe, as documented in the attached brief, saying Roe made baby murder irrelevant as a matter of law. Roe didn’t. This information should startle liberals, and make news.

One lawmaker introducing such a bill should be newsworthy enough to start the public discussion. The more who cosponsor, of course, the more “newsworthy” it is. Will you be that lawmaker? Will you at least co-sponsor such a bill? Or at least vote for it?

Please talk to me.

Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Romulus Marketing. He's also the managing editor at, and the managing partner at Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children.


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend