Michael Peroutka’s Abortion Position As Quoted In WNDarticle on WorldNetDaily.com as suggesting that abortion could be ended on the first day in office by a President who was committed to ending this national disgrace. I pointed out that what is lacking in Washington is not the tools to end abortion but the commitment of a President to do so.
As part of my answer, I said that I would issue an executive order declaring the personhood of the unborn, from the moment of conception, and that I would appoint U.S. Attorneys who would enforce the Constitutional provision that no person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
In response to this, I received an excellent question from a man named Bryan, asking, in light of the Constitution Party’s opposition to the use of Executive Orders to make law or otherwise usurp Constitutional authority, “How does Mr. Peroutka propose to do this? … I’d really hate for us to start sounding hypocritical this early in the game let alone at all.”
I would like to address this question and to clarify my position.
While I am certainly not in favor of the misuse of executive orders as a backdoor way to “make” law, I do believe that lawful policy directives from the Chief Executive to Executive Branch personnel (those under his lawful authority), which do not make new law nor create any new responsibilities nor place any new penalties or restrictions on citizens, can be the proper subject of an executive order. For example, an order to lower the flag to half mast at all executive branch buildings to honor a fallen hero would be the proper use of an executive order. It applies only to the executive branch and does not place any obligation on the people nor usurp the power of any other branch.
Similarly, an executive order declaring the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of the Executive Branch, would not violate the appropriate purpose of such orders and would clarify that the holding in Roe v. Wade will not be enforced upon any state by the Executive (law enforcement) Branch. Such a declaration does not make new law but simply declares the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe to be just what it is, a judicial ruling that binds only Roe and Wade and no one else, including federal or state law enforcement.
In addition, federal prosecutors would be instructed, within the scope of their limited Constitutional authority, to investigate and prosecute those who have or provide abortions.
Moreover, while no action of any President or any branch of government can actually stop a mother from murdering her child, I believe a significant chilling effect upon the murder of innocents can be achieved by a President who is determined and committed to do everything in his constitutional power to punish (or remove the barriers upon the states to punish) those who kill or those who aid or abet the killing of America’s precious children.
My point was, and is, that I am committed to stopping all abortion in America and would act accordingly, including cutting off unconstitutional funding for Planned Parenthood and other organizations which promote murder, the cessation of stem-cell research, and the distribution of RU-486.
Lastly, I have pledged to veto all funding for abortion, here or abroad.