Baby_boy,_one_month_oldHB300 would: “Propos[e] an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, providing that the term “persons” as used in the Code of Alabama 1975, shall include all humans from the moment of fertilization.”  Upon passage, such an amendment would go on the November ballot.

Will HB300 End Abortion?

HB300 protects prenatal children just like born children, and would prohibit the purposeful killing of an innocent human being – thus ending abortion.

Doesn’t HB300 Conflict with Cases Like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

Yes and no. Yes, in that just like Roe and Casey conflict with every case before them and the Constitution of the United States, any law that re-establishes the constitutionally protected right to life of the unborn will conflict with Roe and Casey.  No, in that, the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade opinion (upon which the other relevant cases are founded)  left the door wide open for states to protect the unborn, stating, “[Texas] argue[s] that the fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . . If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”  If it was established that life begins at the moment of fertilization, the foundation of the majority’s opinion in Roe crumbles by their own admission and a prenatal child’s right to life is thus guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  HB300 would finally acknowledge the fact that life begins at fertilization and give Alabama’s prenatal children equal protection of the laws that their mothers already enjoy.

Wouldn’t HB300 Be Struck Down in Court and Cost the State Money?

HB300, along with any pro-life legislation, would almost certainly be challenged in court by the abortion industry as a threat to the false notion that a woman has a right to end the life of her child.  HB300 is constitutionally sound, it hasn’t been challenged in court before, and it is worth the shot.  Every battle takes money, time, and effort to fight and life is worth it.  The anti-life activists provide an example for us: they don’t seem to worry about fighting tooth and nail to ensure that babies are killed.

Is HB300 Invasion of a Woman’s Life, Choices, and Body?

Since the arguments employed by the Roe Court, science and technology have made it clear that life begins at conception/fertilization and that the unborn baby is not part of the woman’s body, but has his or her own body within the mom. For example, about half of the time, the prenatal child is a male. The mother is always female. Her son’s Y chromosome cannot be part of her body. He’s a genetically distinct individual. Women make hundreds of choices relating to their lives and bodies every day.  Once another life (male/female) is inside of them, they can continue to make dozens of choices. Once their child is born, they can continue to make choices. The one choice HB300 would prohibit is the one that would take the life of their unborn child after the moment of fertilization.

Could a Mother Be Arrested for Miscarriage?

No. A natural miscarriage would not be punished, just as a mother is not punished when her born child tragically dies by natural causes or other causes other than the fault of the mother. An induced or chemical abortion, however, is an artificial miscarriage for the purposes of ending an unborn person’s life and is already prohibited under Alabama law.

Will HB300 Outlaw Contraceptives?

No. Recognizing that life begins at fertilization has no effect on contraceptives because true “contra-ception” only prevents conception (fertilization). However, HB300 would prohibit any chemical abortion that kills the youngest boys and girls before or after they implant in their mother’s womb. When the abortion industry says that such legislation would outlaw contraceptives, it’s lying. These people have spent decades telling women that such chemicals did not kill a living embryo. Women should know whether or not a chemical would kill their children. HB300 will end the confusion.

Will HB300 Outlaw In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?

No. By recognizing that life begins at fertilization, IVF clinics would be affected insofar as they are purposely and routinely killing embryo children.  Many fertility clinics already adhere to safer methods of IVF that deal carefully with little lives and nearly every mom undergoing IVF would agree with the restriction that HB300 demands: no purposeful taking of human life. Under HB300 pro-life methods of IVF can be adopted or embryos formed but not implanted by IVF may be adopted as “snowflake children” by other parents, but they may not be destroyed.  For more on in-vitro fertilization go here:

Won’t HB300 Hurt Rape and Incest Victims?

Consider the horror of abortion for non-consensual incest. Cruelly, the abortion clinic typically covers up the crime of incest by sending the victim back home to her abuser—the very criminal who impregnated her and then may have coerced her into an abortion. As recently documented by Live Action Films, abortion clinics in Alabama and nationwide often refuse to comply with mandatory reporting laws for suspected child rape.  Abortion for incest emboldens a criminal to rape his young relative, helps him escape being caught, and tempts him to repeat his crime. It is not compassionate to kill a baby, fuel rape, and increase a woman’s suffering.  HB300 will help people understand that a child can’t die because her father is a criminal. No matter how bleak the situation, taking the life of a child cannot improve any situation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s