Stephen V. Monsma (son of Mrs. Marie Monsma and the late Professor Martin Monsrna), is a member of the Michigan House of Representatives. As such, he is a member of committees on: Civil Rights, Colleges and Universities (Vice-Chairman), Economic Development, and Urban Affairs. His willingness to comply with a request to make this contribution available to THE OUTLOOK is very much appreciated.
On January, 23, 1973 the United States Supreme Court, in a decision as tragic as it was sweeping, overthrew the abortion laws in all 50 states and established abortion-on-demand as the law of the land. In doing so it bypassed the clearly expressed will of the majority of the people, ignored the basic facts of prenatal life, and went against God’s teachings concerning the value of the human life. One has to go back 120 years anti to the Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court held that Negro slaves were not persons under the Constitution, to find a Supreme Court decision which more clearly violates God‘s revealed will concerning the worth of persons whom He has created in His image.
One can continue to hope that the Courts will come to recognize the tragedy of a decision which permits mothers and doctors to conspire to deprive unborn children of their basic right to life. Although the Courts have sometimes recognized bad decisions and moved to reverse them, it remains doubtful they will do so in the case of abortion-on-demand. Thus the surest way to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision and to reestablish the nation‘s commitment to the sanctity of all God-given life, is the adoption of a Constitutional amendment which would prohibit abortions except when necessary to save the mother’s life. A large number of Right-to-Life groups throughout the nation have been working for the adoption of such an amendment.
A subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on such an amendment; but then voted not to report any amendment to the full committee. The House Judiciary Committee has promised to hold hearings in the near future. That is where matters stand in Congress. After three years the full Judiciary Committee of neither the House nor Senate—much less the full House or Senate—has been allowed even to vote on a right to life amendment to the Constitution.
In light of this continued foot-dragging and issueavoidance by Congress, I think we should turn to a second, little known means of initiating an amendment to the United States Constitution. Article 5 of the Constitution provides that when two·thirds of the state legislatures petition Congress to call a special convention fol’ the purpose of initiating an amendment to the Constitution, it must do so. After that special convention meets and initiates an amendment, it then must be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures, just as is the case with amendments initiated by the normal procedure of a two–thirds vote in Congress. This method has never been used successfully to initiate an amendment to the Constitution, but it was clearly provided for by the framers of the Constitution in cases where Congress failed to react to public demands.
Thus I recently introduced in the Michigan legislature House Joint Resolution GG, which petitions Congress to call a convention for the purpose of initiating the following amendment to the United States Constitution:
ARTICLE
Section 1. With respect to the right to life, the word person as used in this article and in the Fifth and Fourteenth Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States applies to all human beings irrespective of age, health, function or condition of dependency, including their unborn off-spring at every stage of their biological development.
Section 2. No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person; provided, however, that nothing in this article shall prohibit a law permitting only those medical procedures required to prevent the death of the mother.
Section 3. The congress and the several states have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Missouri has already adopted a resolution of this type and, as soon as 33 more state legislatures do so, Congress will be legally bound to call a convention to initiate this amendment.
Some have raised objections to using this method to initiate a Constitutional amendment, claiming that a special convention would not have to restrict itself to initiating only the amendment for which it was called into being, but could proceed to rewrite the entire Constitution. My response is three-fold. First, any attempt to move beyond initiating the human life amendment could he challenged in the Courts, and the Courts, in light of the severe problems rewriting the Constitution would entail, would probably uphold the challenge. Second, any amendments proposed by the convention would still have to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Thus, in the unlikely event the convention would try to rewrite the Constitution and its legal right to do so would be upheld by the Courts, the proposed amendments could simply be rejected by the state legislatures. Third, if a number of state legislatures would request a special convention so that the needed number of 34 were being approached, Congress could very easily avoid a convention by the simple means of initiating the human life amendment itself. One practical result of more state legislatures passing resolutions such as the one I introduced would be to put more pressure on Congress to act.
Persons desiring a copy of the resolution I introduced in the Michigan legislature so they can approach their state legislatures in order to urge them to pass the same resolution can write me at: The House of Representatives, The Capitol, Lansing, Michigan 48901. Persons living in Michigan can help by writing their state Representatives and Senators, urging them to support House Joint Resolution GG.