Lanterns: It's Not About Tomi, It's About Life and the Constitution

Blog

It's Not About Tomi, It's About Life and the Constitution

Being a pro-life, small government conservative doesn’t make you a hypocrite. However, categorizing a large swath of people with deeply heartfelt, in some cases, religious convictions as “hypocrites” based on your views as a “constitutional” might. Get it?
 


The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the rights of religion, speech, press and free assembly. My fellow self-proclaimed millennial conservative commentator Tomi Lahren of TheBlaze is getting a lot of bad press from her visit to ABC’s The View on Friday. I won’t link to all of the various pieces that range from straight stories to straight hit-jobs, but here is a good take from our own Jonathan Dunne, Freedom’s Disciple.

Here is where Ms. Lahren’s accusation of hypocrisy falls apart:

- The opposition to abortion and advocating for its abolition fall under the freedom of speech. (Protected under the 1st Amendment)

- Very frequently the opposition to abortion and advocating for its abolition stem from religious conviction. (Protected under the 1st Amendment)

- The framers of the Constitution in the Preamble stated that “ to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” was among the purposes for the ordination and establishment of the Constitution of the United States. Posterity is defined as referring to future generations, in other words: unborn generations (see below). Ergo, the mission to protect the lives and liberties of future generations are enshrined in the very first sentences of the Constitution.

Image Credit : https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/posterity

 

- At the time of America’s founding, the unborn child was protected from the moment they “stir in the womb” according to British judge William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1771) a widely utilized source for early American law:

“THE IMMEDIATE GIFT OF GOD– A RIGHT INHERENT BY NATURE IN EVERY INDIVIDUAL; AND IT BEGINS IN CONTEMPLATION OF LAW AS SOON AS AN INFANT IS ABLE TO STIR IN THE MOTHER’S WOMB. FOR IF A WOMAN IS QUICK WITH CHILD, AND BY A POTION OR OTHERWISE KILLS IT IN HER WOMB; OR IF ANY ONE BEAT HER WHEREBY THE CHILD DIES IN HER BODY AND SHE IS DELIVERED OF A DEAD CHILD, THIS … WAS BY THE ANCIENT LAW HOMICIDE OR MANSLAUGHTER.”

This was due to the then primitive medicine which, at the time, could not otherwise detect a pregnancy with certainty. Today’s medical science, able to view directly into the womb and provide time of conception to within hours, suffers no such handicap and the law can finally protect unborn children as the laws of the 18th century intended, but never could. This law descended as most American laws from English Common Law as PriestsForLife.org described more recently:

“Qui in utero, est pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur: One who is in the womb is held as already born, whenever a question arises for its benefit."

In summation, a small-government constitutionalist may oppose abortion just as easily as the one may oppose murder, counterfitting, piracy, treason, or any of the other offenses described under the Crimes Act of 1790. This act was enacted by the first Congress, among whom sat many signatories of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. These founders would have no doubt under common law seen the protection of unborn life as “Stare Decisis,” or law already in precedent—ironically the same justification later used by Supreme Court Justice Roberts to uphold Roe vs. Wade.

Written by Matthew Holloway

Matt Holloway is a blogger and host presenting Millennial, Constitutional, Conservative commentary on the 21st Century American Republic in an increasingly Progressive, Globalist world. Http://www.thehollownet.blogspot.com

2 Responses

Nicely done, Matt. Love the perspective here.

Thanks Sarah!

leave a reply


login to reply to thread