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

An open letter to Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA, chair of the Judiciary Committee holding hearings on Judge Gorsuch for the the U.S. Supreme Court:


Is it true that Judge Gorsuch thinks abortion, along with letting men in our daughters’ public bathrooms, is “settled law”? If so, do you still support this guy? How did this slip past all the conservatives who have been endorsing him for months?

At the least, will you not correct his misunderstanding of Roe v. Wade?

How can Gorsuch even be right that Roe made it “settled law” that unborn babies are not “persons”, when Roe’s “collapse” clause left the matter far from settled, treating as tentative its failure to recognize the unborn as persons, subject to future findings of facts?

What prolifer does not know this? Roe’s “collapse” clause is quoted in every fundraising letter for every new “personhood” amendment or law. The only thing personhood groups seem to have missed is that the successes they have had, culminating with 18 USC 1841(d) which finds that all unborn babies are humans from conception, is already more than enough to trigger Roe’s “collapse” because it is (1) uncontradicted by any legal authority – no American legal authority says “life begins” any than fertilization; and (2) their consensus has been joined by all other categories of court-recognized fact-finders.

Certainly courts have said that said the opposite: that settled that babies aren’t persons, as a “matter of begins” irrelevant. They didn’t want to take responsibility for saying it doesn’t matter if we are committing infanticide, so they said it, and they just have to obey. But never said such a thing! Roe pointedly did not want to take responsibility for infanticide either, so they said, in the spirit of Matthew 21:27, “we cannot tell” “when life begins”.

SCOTUS certainly didn’t say that whether aborticide in fact murders humans/persons doesn’t matter, or is somehow irrelevant to whether it should remain legally protected! But SCOTUS has never addressed the overwhelming evidence of court-recognized fact finders since 1973 that 14th amendment-protected “life begins” at fertilization.

The notion that mass murder can be such “settled law” that the consensus of fact finders that it is murder doesn’t matter, in a judge, ought to be grounds for impeachment, not to mention reason to block advancement! Murder certainly is not settled law, but the opposite: lower courts have ruled in a way that conflicts with Supreme Court rulings.

Had Roe’s “collapse” never existed, it should be just as obvious that no law can make irrelevant whether the law protects murder. There can be no reason for courts or laws to exist, if not to punish crimes. No act merits the designation “crime”, if murder doesn’t. When the evidence is clear of mass murder, it can’t be nullified by any court or law without chopping away the very reason for courts and laws. Now is the time to say this.

The enclosed model Senate Resolution, intended as criteria for federal judges, summarizes these legal facts.

I emailed this resolution December 12. As instructed by your Des Moines office, I emailed it to [email protected]. I received no response. Usually I at least get a form letter back. If you ignore me, that matters little. But if you ignore information powerful enough to end 44 years of 60 million government-protected and subsidized murders, precisely when you have more opportunity than ever before to use it, you undermine the very reason for laws and courts – and lawmakers.

Model Senate Resolution: Abortion’s legal “collapse”

Whereas, Congress made the “personhood” of the unborn legally recognizable. Federal law has established the fact that all unborn children are human beings since April 1, 2004, stating: “‘unborn child means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero or ‘child, who is in utero means a member of the species Homo Sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb”, (18 U.S.C. § 1841(d)) and criminalizes intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being (18 U.S.C. § 1841(a)(c)), using terms applying absolutely to all unborn children; And

Whereas, the U.S. Supreme Court accepts Congress’ facts. Findings of facts by Congress are “not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless” they clearly cannot possibly “rest upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators”. Any fact established by Congress must be accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court if “any state of facts either known, or which could reasonably be assumed, affords support for it.” U.S. v. Carolene Products, 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938). Furthermore, the authority of U.S. Federal law is superior to the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the sense that until such time as courts declare laws unconstitutional, courts must conform their rulings to them. No court has declared 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d) unconstitutional, or its counterparts in state laws, despite numerous constitutional challenges. To do so would require the Court to positively affirm that human life does not begin until birth, a position which no legal authority has ever taken. And

Whereas, legal recognizability of the fact that the unborn are humans/persons ends the legality of abortion. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 156 (1973) spells out the trigger for its own “collapse”, to wit: [Texas argues] that the ‘fetus’ is a person. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the case [for legal abortion], of course, collapses, for the right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment. And

Whereas, judges are “not in a position” to say whether unborn babies are humans/persons, proving that is a fact question, not a question of law. Although lower courts say Roe ruled as a matter of law that unborn babies are not protected “persons”, leaving reality irrelevant, Roe treated the question as one of fact, subject to future findings of facts, by its reason for failing to recognize the “personhood” of the unborn: “the judiciary…is not in a position to speculate” about “the difficult question of when life begins”, when “those trained in…medicine, philosophy, and theology” don’t agree. Id. at 159. The only way doctors and preachers could be more qualified than judges to answer a question is if it is a fact question, for finders of facts, not a question of law. And

Whereas, all court-recognized categories of fact finders have established that human life and personhood begins at fertilization. All American legal authorities who have taken a position on “when life begins” have established that “life begins”, with all the constitutional protections belonging to humans, at fertilization: (1) juries, in the few abortion prevention trials where the Necessity Defense was permitted, before judges stopped allowing the defense. The defense compared the “harm” of trespassing, in those early cases, with the “necessity” of saving human lives. This requires a factual determination of whether unborn babies are human. Juries found that they are, and acquitted. [Statements 1 and 2 are common knowledge among “Rescuers” prior to F.A.C.E., and are confirmed by “Necessity as a Defense to a Charge of Criminal Trespass in an Abortion Clinic”, 48 U.Cin.L.Rev. 501 (1979), in a footnote on page 502.] (2) expert witnesses, in thousands of abortion prevention trials: doctors and scientists were brought in to testify that human life begins at fertilization. They were never contradicted. (3) State legislatures. “At least 38 states have enacted fetal-homicide statutes, and 28 of those statutes protect life from conception.” Hamilton v. Scott, 97 So. 3d 728 (Ala. 2012) (38 states are enough to ratify a constitutional amendment.) (See also standalone affirmations of unborn personhood such as Missouri #1.205, R.S.Mo.1986, Louisiana LSA-R.S. 40:1299,35.0, Nebraska 28-325. R.R.S. 1943, besides various proclamations of Presidents and Governors) (4) Congress’ finding in 2004 was only the final category of court-recognized finders of facts, making the fact unanimous and uncontested. And

Whereas, the so-called legal disconnect between “humans” and “persons” is a rabbit trail. The fact that all humans are constitutionally protected “persons” is undisputed. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113, 133 (1973) equates the time an unborn child becomes humanwith the time the child becomes a “person”, to wit: “These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul or ‘animated.’ See also United States v. Palmer 16 U.S. 610, 631 (1818), “The words ‘any person or persons,’ are broad enough to comprehend every human being. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic…This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) a new life comes into being with the union of human egg and sperm cells,Id at 746, and “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it,” Id 746-47. And

Whereas, no fact can be more legally established. No American legal authority recognized by courts as “finders of facts” have found that human life and/or personhood begins any later than fertilization, but have said at most that “we cannot tell” or “SCOTUS has already said so” (even though SCOTUS said the opposite in Roe, whose “collapse” clause actually invites fact finders to “resolve” the fact “question”. SCOTUS has neither addressed the question since, nor dismissed its importance). No fact can possibly be any more legally recognized, than that human life and/or personhood, and all the Constitutional protection that brings, begins at fertilization. If judges are unable to know, now, that “life begins” at fertilization, they are unable to know anything. And

Whereas, the so-called lack of “permission” for states to criminalize abortion, in clause (c) of 18 U.S.C. § 1841, is a scarecrow. Section (c) does not “permit [authorize] the prosecutionof baby killing with mothers’ consent, under the penalties of (a) for baby killing without mothers’ consent. This doesn’t nullify or preclude other state or federal laws against baby killing with mothers’ consent. (c) does not somehow limit or nullify the finding in (d) that all unborn babies of humans – even those slain by abortionists – are humans/persons, making abortion legally recognizable as murder, requiring states to criminalize it. The fact that a particular federal law covers a crime in only certain circumstances (which is routine because of differences in intent, availability of evidence, etc), does not somehow prevent lawmakers from the future or from other jurisdictions from addressing the same crime committed in other circumstances. Now that the humanity of the unborn is established by 18 U.S.C. §1841(d), in unison with all other court-recognized finders of facts, the 14th Amendment is all the “permission” states need to criminalize abortion. 18 U.S.C. §1841(c) has no power to prevent states from complying with 14th Amendment. And

Whereas, had Roe omitted its “collapse” clause, its substance would still be obvious and controlling. It is obvious, with or without Roe’s “collapse” clause, that with the knowledge that all unborn babies of humans are humans, comes the inescapable conclusion that killing them is murder. This is obvious and unchangeable by any law. What matters is that babies are in fact humans. What is irrelevant to this fact is their legal status. All who participate in laws, regulations, and rulings which defy this reality are accessories to genocide. Regardless of what any court has ever said or may ever say, it should be just as obvious now as when Justice Blackmun wrote his “collapse” clause, that there can be no law which makes irrelevant whether the law protects murder, that does not defeat the very reason for laws and courts. There can be no reason for courts or laws to exist, if not to punish crimes. No act merits the designation “crime”, if murder doesn’t. When the evidence is clear of mass murder, it can’t be nullified by any court or law without chopping away the very reason for courts and laws. Various “philosophers” try to obscure this reality with analogies which do not quite match it, any better than the legs of the lame match each other. (Proverbs 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.) And

Whereas, (I)f the law recognizes that a fetus is a legal person from the moment of conception... then the law must recognize and protect the rights of that person on a legal basis with the rights of the adult pregnant woman. If our laws recognize that, then there can be no right to choose, because, logically, terminating a pregnancy even in its earliest stages would be killing a fully legal person.(Congressman Nadler, speaking against the UNBORN VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE ACT OF 2003 150 Cong. Rec. H637-05, *H640.) [For the record with analysis, see]. And

Whereas, [the consequence of 18 U.S.C. §1841 is that] “….unborn children whether viable or not, will be considered as human beings, and therefore, whole as persons as victims of crime. [Laci’s Laws] extension of legal personhood to a[n] [unborn child] is entirely unprecedented in the history of federal law... [The Court] could be forced to do what it has avoided for over thirty years: determine the ultimate value of the life interest and decide when that life begins.(Amanda Bruchs, Clash of Competing Interests: Can the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and Over Thirty Years of Settled Abortion Law Co-Exist Peacefully?, 55 Syracuse L. Rev. 133 (2004). See also: Wilmering, R.R., Note, Federalism, The Commerce Clause 80 Tns . L_J. 1989 (2005); Speizer, E., Recent Developments in Reproduction Health Law.…41 Cal. W.L. Rev. 507 (2005); Kole, T. and Kadetsky, L., Recent Developments, 39 Harvard Journal Legislation 215 (2002))].

Therefore, be it resolved, that:

With legal abortion’s legally recognizable, uncontested, and controlling “collapse on April Fools Day, 2004, if not long before, through passage of 18 U.S.C. § 1841(d), no state has any further legal reason to refrain from criminalizing abortion, or to support or protect abortion in any way; AND

Every state is obligated by the 14th Amendment to protect unborn children with criminal laws as effective as those that protect born children, with accommodations only to differences prosecutors will deal with in intent and evidence; AND

No abortionist has legal standing to sue any individual for interference, or to seek an injunction against interference, or to call police to stop interference; abortionists, committing what is legally recognizable as murder, lack the “clean hands” necessary to present their interests in a civil action, for relief from the protests and public exposure that their own legally recognizable crimes have justified. AND

Acceptance of the uncontested legally recognizable fact that all unborn babies of humans are humans/persons is appropriately included in the criteria for Senate confirmation hearings of all Presidential appointees for posts where abortion may be involved, and especially for judges; AND

Any state or federal judge who (1) blocks any states effort to bring its laws into conformity with the 14th Amendment, or (2) restrains any individual from preventing abortions, or (3) rules irrelevant the consensus of fact finders that makes the unborn legally recognizable as humans/persons and abortion as murder, in so doing, (a) violates Roe v. Wade, (b) interferes with a states compliance with the 14th Amendment, and (c) becomes an accessory to genocide according to our Constitution and international Nuremburg precedents; AND

Being an accessory to genocide is grounds for impeachment.

iPatriot Contributers


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?