Over the weekend, I received an email addressed to me and the other two candidates who are on the ballot for State Delegate in my district.  Without sharing whether he was for or against abortion, he asked all three of us to articulate our position on the issue.

My reply (though somewhat lengthy) may be of interest to those who are keeping tabs on my campaign.

-- -- -- -- --

Michael,

Thank you for the email.

I happen to take a firm stance on this issue, and though it may require a lengthy reply, I think it's important to let you know "why" I take such a firm stance.

Among the issues that matter most to the future of our commonwealth, this is one that certainly deserves our immediate attention.

The right to life is a natural right that cannot be abridged—   not by state or federal legislatures, not by state or federal judiciaries, not by governors, not by presidents.  In fact, even if all branches of government were to work in tandem, writing bogus laws and issuing phony edicts (as they have indeed been doing for the past 40 years), they could never "lawfully" effectuate the nullification of this unalienable right.

In his 1962 inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy did a good job of articulating the mechanics of this principle when he said, "The world is very different now, for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish . . . all forms of human life."

He went on to declare, " . . . the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—  [such as] the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

In 1983, on the tenth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade, President Ronald Reagan issued a lengthy statement acknowledging his belief in the fact that those in the womb have "a God-given right to be protected by the law—  the same right we have."

Believe it or not, our founding fathers dealt with this subject pretty thoroughly as well.

It was stated in The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) that individuals are forbidden from depriving their "posterity" (and this would certainly include their posterity in the womb) "the enjoyment of life and liberty", even by virtue of legislative enactments.

And as our forebears went through the process of ratifying this document, where the original draft read that all descendants of mankind are "born" with the natural endowment of their God-given rights, it will be instructive to note that the Virginia Convention struck out the word "born".

If that word had been left in, the abortion people could perhaps argue (as some do nevertheless) that our founding generation did not mean for the rights of life and liberty to be applied to life in the womb—  or any other form of human life which is not fully developed, for that matter.

If that word had remained in, perhaps it could be argued, as Judge Blackmun seemed to suggest, that unless and until such life emerges from the womb, is cut from its mother's umbilical cord, and is certified by the Federal judiciary as being "up to snuff", we are dealing with a "lesser" life form that our founders had deliberately excluded from the purview of law.

What we find, however, is an example of the great foresight and moral competence of the Virginia Convention.  What did they do?  They struck out the word "born" and substituted it with the phrase "by nature", so that the declaration would read, "all men are by nature equally free", removing the hint of any suggestion that this declaration of rights was in any way meant to exclude our posterity in the womb.

Thomas Jefferson, in The Declaration of Independence (1776), identified life as an "inalienable", "self-evident", God-given right—  a right that could not be given away or taken away.  And using the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the proceedings of the Virginia Convention as a source of inspiration, he too struck out the word "born", substituting it with the word "created", removing even the very hint that this national declaration of our inalienable rights was somehow meant to exclude or neglect the rights of our posterity in the womb, as some might otherwise have suggested. 

The governing guidelines of The Federal Constitution (1787) – which were enumerated in The Preamble – declare the defining purposes for its own enactment.  One of the reasons given was this:  To secure the blessings of liberty "to ourselves and our posterity".  From this, it will be instructive to note that the Constitution not only recognizes the God-given rights of our posterity, but it places those rights on an equal level with our own.

Incidentally, the term "blessings of liberty" was first etched into our founding charters by George Mason, who attached a specific meaning to it.  His definition was meant to represent a brief articulation of our most basic human rights under natural law.  And where the Federal Constitution was established, in part, to secure the blessings of liberty to "our posterity", we may safely conclude from Mason that the "blessings" clause was intended to canonize the underlying fact that we cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest our posterity "the enjoyment of life and liberty" or the means of pursuing and obtaining "happiness and safety".  In essence, George Mason had codified our country's moral basis for truth and justice, by declaring that these four particular elements of freedom represented our most basic human rights—  our universal claim (as human beings) to life, liberty, happiness, and safety.

I could continue on in great detail, expounding on the intentions of The Bill of Rights [The Fifth Amendment] (1791) and The Fourteenth Amendment [Section 1] (1868).  Suffice it to say, the Virginia General Assembly of 1970 acted in direct violation of constitutional law when it passed a bill to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute.  And Governor Linwood Holton acted in direct violation of constitutional law when he signed it.  Likewise, when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), it did so in direct violation of constitutional law.  Each one of these three forces acted in defiance, not only of our Constitution, but also every other founding charter and legislative enactment that demonstrated the intent to ensure a proper and settled understanding, a deep appreciation, and a corporate recognition of natural law.  By what right did Judge Blackmun deny the due enforcement of these rights?  By no right, whatsoever, except that he was determined to neglect every existing mandate that explicitly prohibited him from doing so.

All that I have addressed to this point is simply meant to articulate the basis for my belief that we must declare our independence from the political parties by pressing for the abolishment of abortion.  An untold measure of moral influence is there for us to express and affirm at the ballot-box.  If ordinary citizens would simply take a stand and exert some of that influence abortion, same-sex marriage, neo-secularism, euthanasia, and other ruthless, state-imposed initiatives, might be kept in their proper dominion, and restrained from encroaching upon the free people of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

As Delegate of the 44th House District, I would concentrate on restoring the constitutional rights of those in the womb.

Here is a quick summary of what my campaign advocates in relation to abortion and the restoration of equal justice:

  (1)  No abortions.  /  No exemptions.

  (2)  Petition our elected officials to yield to the preeminence of natural law, as they are required under the framework of our founding charters.

  (3)  Work to develop a pro-life coalition advocating "Equal Protection for Posterity" within the Virginia General Assembly.

  (4)  Introduce a bill to re-establish "Equal Protection for Posterity" within the framework of Virginia Statutory Law.

  (5)  Introduce a bill calling for an "Equal Protection for Posterity" amendment to The Virginia Constitution, in order to re-assert and properly ensure the continued recognition our basic human rights into the future.

  (6)  Introduce a bill to bring back the "Equal Justice" clause of the oath of office, which was removed by the Virginia Convention of 1901-02, in an act of political despotism.

  (7)  Introduce a bill to celebrate the efforts of Governor Charles T. O'Ferrall who is said to have worked vigorously during his tenure (in the late 19th Century) to stamp out the practice of lynching.

  (8)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of the Virginia Convention of 1901-02, in its refusal to accept and to recognize the civil and political equality of all men before the law, and for its corruptive decision to remove the "Equal Justice" clause from the oath of office. 

  (9)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of the Virginia General Assembly of 1970, when it voted to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute, in direct violation of the mandates given in our founding charters.

  (10)  Introduce a bill to publicly repudiate the despotic act of Governor Linwood Holton, when he signed a bill (in 1970) to liberalize Virginia's abortion statute, in direct violation of the mandates given in our founding charters.

The bottom line:  We must return to an understanding of justice that recognizes the equity of all persons before the law, and that seeks to render equal and exact justice to all.

Now more than ever, it seems clear to me that the political parties have made it their aim to force us all down a path of moral relativism.  And so that we might feel we've had a say in the matter, they have set before us the phony choice of whether to be "marched" down this path on account of the willful and deliberate action of a Democrat, or successfully "dragged" down it on account of the passive and neglectful inaction of a Republican.  Either way, we are still being forced down the wrong path, with little hope of escape.  For my part, I'm here to offer voters a chance to break this cycle, if they would simply reach out and take the opportunity.

I appreciate the fact that you're interested in getting to know me and the other candidates.  And the simple fact that you've included me in this query tells me that you are someone who's willing to place "principle" ahead of "party".

Whenever I'm reminded that there are voters like you out there, I'm deeply encouraged.

I want good people like you by my side on Election Day.


Joseph A. Glean,  Independent Candidate

Prospective Delegate for Virginia's 44th House District