[
Back ]
The Drafting of the

the first State Human Life Amendment in U.S. History
(also known as a Personhood
Amendment)
Commentary by its author,
Pro-Life
Dave (David Rogers)
NOT IN MISSISSIPPI?
Print Out and Use to help draft your own state amendment!
See other state Personhood Amendments -
click here.

This document contains a sentence-by-sentence commentary on the background
and construction of the Ultimate Human Life Amendment (UHLA).
This is provided to answer many common questions and to be a
resource for other states in drafting of their own Ultimate
Human Life Amendment.
The UHLA, first introduced in Mississippi, was the first ever proposed State Human Life
Amendment (aka Personhood Amendment) in U.S.
History.
The Mississippi version of the UHLA was authored by
Pro-Life Dave with the consultation of a select group of scholars with expertise in Science, American
Government & History, and Constitutional Law. The UHLA
drew upon wording from a series of the most popular proposed
Federal Human Life Amendments to Congress.
Research and drafting
of the Mississippi UHLA began in late 2004, the language was
finalized in August of 2005. Its introduction and official
filing was put off until Nov. 1st because of a direct hit by
Hurricane Katrina. The official filing letter, introducing the
UHLA, contains the "Declaration
for the Unborn" which you can
read here.
|
GOALS of
the
Ultimate Human Life Amendment
Some of
these areas may seem technical but all are important.
IF you are serious about personhood for the unborn
then study each area. In doing so you will learn
the critical concepts and components needed to
overturn Roe v. Wade and END Abortion Once and For
All.
ONE:
(God gets the Glory)
Public recognition of God as
our Creator
AND
that our Rights come from God
TWO:
Connecting Personhood to
the State's Due Process Clause.
THREE:
Force the State
Government implement the Amendment equally.
|
FOUR:
(Personhood)
Define "persons" for Due Process Protection to Include
all Unborn Children and other vulnerable in our society
including the elderly, handicapped, and the infirmed.
FIVE:
Permanent Classification
of Assisted Suicide as Murder.
SIX:
Protecting the Life
of the Mother.
|
The spelling and use of some words in the Mississippi UHLA may appear odd, like
"shall" and small "s" in state, but they
reflect the style and format already present in the Mississippi
Constitution.
|
|

UHLA Paragraph
1, Sentence 1:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
persons are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that
among these are the Right to Life, that is, the Right to
not have ones life taken from them.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 1:
Public recognition of God as
our Creator
AND
that our rights come from God
What better place to start than with America's great
Declaration of Independence. "Self-Evident" truths
are those which all men know in their heart to be true.
Among
these are the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness. That these Rights are a gift from
God!
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when
we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in
the minds of the people that these liberties are a
gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I
reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot
sleep forever.”
- Thomas Jefferson
(Query 18, Notes on the State of Virginia)
All too often you will find today's landscape of
American politics painted in perverted twisted shapes
similar to some types of modern art. The
public face of American politics more often shows a warped
version of reality
and distracts from the real fundamental issues and core principles
of liberty. This false political world creates fake issues and motivates people
to pursue rabbit holes of
logic that lead nowhere. SO, in designing the
first sentence, my purpose was to
firmly establish and to point readers back to a main
document in American Liberty that promotes the founding
fathers' ideals of a God-given of
the Right to Life for all.
The only modifications here were to
change the word "man" to "person" and "unalienable" to
"inalienable" (which is grammatically correct) and then
dropping the words "liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
because we are focusing on, for the purpose of this amendment, the Right to Life.
One main concern that arose after the
initial draft was that the term "Right to Life" might be
twisted by lawyers and courts to include a right to have
the State pay for health care or some other right. To
resolve and to clarify this the following wording was included
to define the Right to Life, "that
is, the Right to not have ones life taken from them."
|
|

UHLA Paragraph
1, Sentence 2:
Therefore, the
government of the state of Mississippi shall recognize
and defend the God-given Right to Life of all persons
equally in accordance with Section 14 of the State
Constitution of 1890.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 2:
Connecting Personhood to
the State's Due Process Clause.
Achieved Goal # 3:
Mandate the State
Government implement Equal Enforcement.
"Therefore"
takes the entire last sentence and announces the main point.
Next, "the
government of the state of Mississippi shall"
means all parts: legislature, courts, sheriff, county,
city, governor, etc -- everyone in any type of
government position within the state of Mississippi.
Next, "shall
recognize" means
in all
their actions they must legally
respect the Right to Life of all persons. Next,
"and
defend" means that
the government must proactively defend the Right to Life.
The main venue being through the state legislature who
writes the laws and
district attorneys who prosecute. Next, "the
God-given Right to Life"
is another recognition that our rights are endowed to us
from God and not from any man or government.
EQUAL ENFORCEMENT
-
THIS IS BIG!
Next, "of
all persons equally" - This will force the State of
Mississippi to prosecute murder of unborn children using
the same murder laws for born persons. The U.S.
Supreme Court had a major issue in Roe v. Wade with the
state of Texas walk not matching their talk.
Several Supreme Court Justices asked this question: "If
an unborn child is a person then why didn't Texas
prosecute abortion as murder under existing state murder
laws?" Even though the attorney for Texas said
the state believed and even though he argued that life began at
conception and that full protection and personhood
should begin at conception -- the state's own limited
anti-abortion laws (allowing abortion under some conditions)
and also the fact that they did not use standard murder
laws to prosecute abortion... all added up to
proving to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state of
Texas really did not believe an unborn child was
a person.
So the key to overturning Roe v.
Wade is not just personhood, the legal recognition of unborn
children as persons, but that the state acts in
prosecuting abortions as murder in the same manner of a born
person. Also that the state does not allow any
circumstances under which an abortion can take place,
except to save the life of the mother.
CRITICAL FLAW DISCOVERED.
A main reason why we have
abortion today.
Either
ALL abortion is wrong or
ALL
abortion is right.
The State giving any reason to kill
an unborn child, like for rape or incest, is what got us
into this entire mess with abortion in the first place.
In 1967 Colorado was the first state to enact laws with such
exceptions. There can be no middle ground,
ethically, technically or legally. Any compromise
of the absolute position of not allowing abortion under
any circumstances, except when saving the life of the
mother, only proves the position (especially to judges)
that unborn children are not human beings. This
automatically allows abortion at any stage of
pregnancy, for any reason, and by any means.
In addition, if a
state does not act or prosecute abortion as
murder, except when saving
the life of the mother, then that state is ALSO proving
the position by their actions that they do not consider
an unborn child to be a human being and a person. So a
state's walk must follow their talk.
One of the main reasons why we have
abortion legalized through the courts today is that the
state of Texas, and most states of that day, did not take an absolute position on
abortion in the 1970s thus leading up to the decision in
Roe v. Wade.
Think about this. If a state
does not prosecute for the murder of a black man, or a
disabled person, then what they are saying by their
actions is that they
are not people or they are 'less than human'.
One of the most heart wrenching
arguments for compromise on abortion is that one should
"at least" allow for the rare cases of rape or incest.
Not to diminish the impact to these women's lives, but
IF ANY circumstance is allowed then ALL abortion will be
legal. What remains is this:
Should a child be killed for the crime of their father? Was the child
convicted of a capital crime due the death penalty?
Obviously the answer is 'no'.
DUE PROCESS
The Mississippi Constitution's Due
Process Clause, Section 14, reads:
Section 14. Due
process.
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property except by due process of law."
In the UHLA, using the wording:
"in
accordance with Section 14 of the State Constitution"
with "of
all persons equally" -
binds Mississippi's due process clause to all persons
equally, which along with next sentence in the
amendment, now includes unborn children. This
recognizes, among others, unborn children's due process
rights, among which is the Right not to be deprived of
life, except by due process. That means an unborn
child would have to of been tried and convicted of a
capital crime. Not likely.
Binding the equal enforcement wording
with the state's due process clause now completes the
equal enforcement
principle talked about above.
DEATH PENALTY
We recognize there are differing
views within the pro-life community on the death
penalty. While not speaking to the merits of any
view, put simply, changing the death penalty would mean
altering the due process clause. Mississippi
Constitutional Initiatives cannot change, add to, or
repeal any part of the state Bill of Rights,
which Section 14 (the due process clause) is a part of.
|
|

UHLA Paragraph
1, Sentence 3:
The word "person" shall apply to
all human beings, regardless of race, color, creed,
religion, citizenship, ancestry, national origin, sex,
age, health, function, or condition of dependency, at
all stages of biological development from fertilization
until natural death.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 4:
Defining Personhood for
all. No Exceptions.
This is the first mention in the Mississippi
Constitution of protection for people regardless of
race, color, creed, disability, age, or health condition.
Although we may enjoy certain 'federal' legal status and
protections of rights, I believe strongly that we, as a
people in Mississippi, should govern our own selves well
and should institute within our own state government and
constitution those provisions we now hold sacred, noble,
and true. Among these sacred truths are that "all
people" have a Right to Life regardless of race,
national origin, religion, disability, or health condition.
This must include 'all
human beings' from our very beginning at
fertilization until natural death.
Why do we go Beyond
Personhood for the Unborn?
Should
not God's Goals be Our Goals?
Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, God's goal is
the respect and protection of ALL INNOCENT LIFE not just unborn
children. Is this not supposed to be the true
Pro-Life standard?
That is the goal behind the Ultimate Human Life
Amendment (UHLA). Should not our goals be the same as
God's?
The UHLA was meant to protect all innocent life even if the
wording may sometimes get a little complex. EVERY word has a specific purpose and pattern
and was thorough researched for about a year, consulted on
with constitutionalist, scientists, and historians.
IF we are going to make an effort shouldn't we make it
our best effort and protect all innocent life?!
[ close ]
Sometime people need to stand up
and make a public declaration of fundamental truths and
'enshrine' them into our state constitution. We do
not know what the future will hold. Racism and
prejudice may creep back into and take a stronghold in our state. It is
important that we make this public declaration now in
setting a clear standard so that great travesties of the past
will not occur again in our state's future.
I believe strongly in setting the
record straight and setting a clear standard using our
legislative and constitutional processes. The
people look to our state leaders and those in authority
to give societal parameters and to define fundamental
basics of good and evil. So setting the complete
"human life" record straight was important to me, not
just the recognition of unborn children as persons but
the recognition of the Right to Life for all people.
We all are in a struggle for the preservation of our
most basic rights, among the highest, the Right to Life.
We all are in this struggle together. The
diminishing of one group of people's Right to Life is a
threat to us all. When the rationale for abortion
crept into our culture the same reasoning that breaks
the principle of valuing
all human life allowed doctors and others to make
judgment calls as to whether an older, senior adult or a
handicapped person can be killed or allowed to starved
to death. These things are happening today in
America! America's dirty little secrets. This is the
result of moving away from the principles and sacredness
for ALL human life.
The U.S. Supreme Court
once ruled that African Americans could be legally
owned, bought, and sold like property. Up until
50 years ago U.S. Citizens who were Native Indians,
Irish, Mexican, Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, and from
African decent were all demonized and looked upon as less
than human, somehow retarded, a 'lesser species' of
human. Just 60 years ago, during World War II,
U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were forced from
their homes and placed in concentration camps.
Come on America! Wake up!
[ close ]
All human beings deserve the absolute protection of
life. Once we diverge from this absolute principle
then we create a ever growing culture of death, as seen
today, by which those in authority who can choose to end
someone's life without due process; where teenagers go
on shooting sprees in schools; where abuse of children,
women, the elderly, the sick, and disabled are now
common; where adults murder each other without
considering it to be wrong. Why? Because if
there is no absolute principle of life anymore then
anybody can make up their own rules or change them as
they please.
|
|
UHLA Paragraph
2, Sentence 1:
No person shall deprive another person of life by
assisting or aiding in their suicide.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 5:
Permanent Classification
of Assisted Suicide as Murder.
Euthanasia is always considered murder and is
prosecuted as such. Although Assisted Suicide is
already illegal in Mississippi, I felt the needed for it to be
"enshrined" in the Constitution. The wording here
clearly defines assisting in a suicide as a criminal act
and classifies it as murder by the wording, "deprive
another person of life",
although it leaves the level or classification or degree of murder up to the state
legislature.
|
|
UHLA Paragraph
2, Sentence 2:
No person shall
deprive an unborn person of life; provided, however,
that nothing in this amendment shall prohibit a law
allowing justification to be shown for only those
medical procedures required to prevent the death of
either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring as
long as such law requires every reasonable effort be
made to preserve the life of each.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
Achieved Goal # 6:
Protection of the Life
of the Mother.
The whole purpose of this sentence is
to not allow the state, judges, or any authorities to
mandate or force the mother to die for her unborn child. Not providing such a protection
COULD allow the state to
intervene in these situations. While existing
legislative public policy and current court rulings
support this already we felt including this wording
would reinforced this principle. The state
legislature is charged with making laws detailing the
specifics of situations and current medical procedures under
this mandate that: "every
reasonable effort be made to preserve the life of each. "
Sometimes hard decisions have to be
made to take action that would result in the death of a
unborn child. While rare, not making such a
decision could just as well result in the death of the
unborn child anyway. Such decisions can only be
made justly while in the act of saving the life of the
mother.
Although this sentence might be hard to read at first,
it was carefully and specifically worded. The
language comes from
National
Right to LIfe's "Unity
Human Life Amendment" designed for Congress and
introduced in 1981.
This sentence helps the reader understand that saving the life of the
mother AND her unborn child is always the priority but
IF the
life of the mother is in danger then the unborn child's
life can be taken. This gets into weighing of one
life against another,
as discussed in Roe v. Wade. The same Pro-Life principle
that supports the Right to Life of the unborn child
also supports the Right to Life of the mother and thus
it would be wrong to legally force the mother to
sacrifice her own life to save her child.
|
|
UHLA Paragraph
3, Sentence 1:
No designated funds are required to implement this
amendment.
PRO-LIFE DAVE'S COMMENTARY:
This looks like
an odd statement to be thrown in here but it is a
required budgetary statement for constitutional
initiatives in Mississippi. Simply put, there are no
special funds needed to be set aside in the state budget to specifically
carry out this amendment. The carrying out of this
amendment will fall under existing enforcement of murder
laws by law enforcement and state prosecutors and
their existing budgets.
|
|
|