Everyone has an agenda, a plan. But not all agendas are good agendas and some bad agendas cause division within an good agenda…makes sense? It does, if you think about it.
Consider this: Slavery was the scourge of the United States years ago; it was a part of our country over 100 years (first record being 1619) before we became a country (1776) and it took many, many years to abolish it in 1865. But some of the lawmakers of that day were slave owners (maybe not directly) so they had an agenda for their own interests. As we all know, we pitted ourselves against ourselves because of an agenda. Eight Presidents owned slaves while in office. An agenda within an agenda.
Agenda is the same for any lawmaker; it’s about their constituency, the agenda of their party or even a personality conflict. Either way, social agenda chips away at the issue at hand and makes a mockery of what was integrity. What I’m finding as I email representatives regarding current bills is that they are in it for the status quo, the law is the law, don’t do anything to upend the proverbial apple cart. Why in the world are you in office? Aren’t you here to change things and make it a better state in which to live? I think they like the word ‘Representative’ in front of their names.
In prolife issues, we have an agenda to protect all Life from conception to natural death – period. There is no child left behind. We continue to chip away at Roe because it is bad law. For 38 years we have been fighting the good fight to end this slaughter. And as every teeny tiny bit of legislation that comes along, we continue with the agenda to save and protect Life. But now there’s an agenda within an agenda.
What if it’s not constitutional? And whose opinion are we to believe that it is or is not? Isn’t all a matter of OPINION and interpretation as the Supreme Court deems so? Is abortion constitutional or is it the right to have an abortion constitutional? An agenda within an agenda.
The Heartbeat Bill (HB 125) is under extreme scrutiny from….prolifers?? How can that be? Ask Mike Gonidakis of Ohio Right to Life. He’s under the impression that this bill would never be upheld and could hurt future prolife legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. His agenda within the prolife agenda is personal, nothing more.
The Heartbeat Bill cannot hurt any other current prolife law. The bill itself clearly specifies that it will not affect any other existing prolife law restriction or regulating abortion. It was written that way to keep people like Gonidakis from refuting it. There isn’t a reason in the world not to go forward with the Heartbeat Bill.
David Forte, Professor of Law at Cleveland State University says, “Now some say that we should not pass a bill that a court might disallow, that we should only pass bills that we are sure will be upheld. Frankly, I must say that this is a strange way of protecting the unborn. It surrenders to the status quo…..Courts never change their minds unless they are invited to.”
Rep. Todd McKenney, R-New Franklin and a co-sponsor of the [Heartbeat] bill, said he understands House Bill 125 is likely to be struck down but said “you have to challenge existing law…..I’m not waffling on my support.” I know people that had to take their drivers test 3 times to pass it and get their drivers license – would you have stopped at the first fail and not tried again? I didn’t think so.
However, he said he will offer an amendment to delay implementation of the law until December 2012. He hopes the move will ensure the anticipated legal challenge will be considered separate from any lawsuit filed against a late-term abortion ban that the House is poised to adopt. Columbus Dispatch 3/28/11
With my own ears I heard an Executive Director of my local Right to Life say that one of the reasons they don’t want the Heartbeat bill is MONEY. Is there a law that didn’t cost money to lobby for?
If we don’t challenge ANYTHING that might take some work and money, we will never get rid of bad law. Roe v. Wade is bad law and anyone that won’t fight COMPLETELY for Life is not prolife at all.