If you are in the area, we would love to have you be our guest for Sunday Morning Worship at 8:30 AM or 11:00 AM and Sunday School at 9:45 AM. For more info, contact our church office at 620-672-7591 ( You can find us on FB too!)

Problem 2) If Jesus is presently reigning over this world as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, then He is the worst King ever! Just watch the news, things are not getting better!

Problem 3) Both Amillenialism and postmillenialism completely ignore the nation of Israel when the Bible is clear that Israel is still God’s chosen people, and Israel will be at the center of all the end time events. In fact the immediate reason for Jesus’ return will be to save Israel from the Antichrist. May 14th, 1948 and all the following world events surrounding the nation of Israel prove that Israel is still a viable part of Biblical prophecy.

Statutes, like the Missouri law reviewed in Webster and like Senate Bill 1433, are presumed constitutional unless ruled otherwise. The abortion industry asked the Court in Webster to declare the Missouri law unconstitutional. The Court refused to do so. Therefore, on its face, the Missouri law is constitutional. Senate Bill 1433 is identical in every significant way to the Missouri law, so Senate Bill 1433, too, would be constitutional on its face.

The Webster Court’s statements that you quote in your comment did imply that if that Missouri law were to be applied in a way that was not constitutional, then that application of the law would be thrown out. But even if certain applications of a law might be thrown out, that does not mean that the entire law is unconstitutional.

A simple way to explain it is that any law can be applied in an unconstitutional way, but few laws on their face are unconstitutional. For example, a law against speeding in a school zone is perfectly constitutional on its face. But if that law is applied only against black drivers, then that application would be unconstitutional, although the underlying speeding law would still be constitutional. However, a law against blacks speeding in a school zone would be unconstitutional on its face, since it could not possibly be applied in a constitutional way.

The Missouri statute, and Senate Bill 1433, are like the law against speeding in a school zone. On its face Senate Bill 1433 and the Missouri law are constitutional. If such laws were to be applied to prosecute an abortionist for performing an abortion, that application, sadly, would not be constitutional, under unfortunate current Supreme Court jurisprudence such as Roe v. Wade.

That’s why most advocates for the Personhood Act, Senate Bill 1433, have been saying that while SB 1433 is a very important educational statement for the public, it could not, unfortunately, be applied to ban abortion, etc. Roe v. Wade, unfortunately, would not allow such an application to proceed. Same goes for contraception and in vitro fertilization- no application of any law could be used to prohibit contraception or in vitro fertilization, given Supreme Court cases on such issues. In addition, there is a specific amendment on the Personhood Act that makes it even more clear that it does not prohibit contraception or in vitro fertilization.

I thank Oklahoma Baptists for their courageous Christian moral witness on this issue and so many others in our society.

-Kevin Calvey
Attorney at Law

Here’s a link to the actual Supreme Court opinion:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0490_ZO.html

Chief Justice Rehnquist’s statement on the personhood language in the Missouri statute is pretty clear: “We therefore need not pass on the constitutionality of the Act’s preamble.”

You can find it on page 507 of the opinion. The page numbers are highlighted in blue and appear within the body of the text like this: [p. 507]

Not that this matters to Personhood USA. Their president consider rulings by the United States Supreme Court in this, the great and venerable Constitutional Democracy that is the United States of America, to be “judicial tyranny.”

Read it for yourself: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/2/prweb9194478.htm

Thanks.

You make a distinction without a difference about the preamble, I am afraid. What more needs to be known that the law was upheld?

Thanks,
Brian Hobbs

Please go to this website for more information on how the personhood movement expects to affect birth control.