Oklahoma’s Senator Nathan Dahm: ‘The Hell-Hound of Abortion’

by / on May 24, 2016 at 12:30 pm /
Submit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrDigg ThisDigg ThisShare via emailShare via email Share

Phil Jensen

ADVERTISEMENT

Oklahoma Senator Nathan Dahm is likely to override a veto of Governor Mary Fallin who rejected a bill that would make it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion in the state of Oklahoma.

Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm

Oklahoma State Senator Nathan Dahm

This senator’s fearless zeal for life is refreshingly similar to President John Quincy Adams, nicknamed “The Hell-Hound of Slavery” for relentlessly speaking out against slavery.

As depicted in the movie Amistad, Adams defended 53 Africans purchased at Muslim slave markets, accused of mutiny aboard the slave ship Amistad.  He won their case before the Supreme Court, giving them back their freedom, stating:

Rick Kriebel 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

“The moment you come to the Declaration of Independence, that every man has a right to life and liberty, an inalienable right, this case is decided. I ask nothing more on behalf of these unfortunate men than this Declaration.”

Adams said he felt “bonded” by the Constitution to work for universal emancipation (freedom for all).

He was so galvanized about the topic, in 1836, Southern members of Congress along with Northern Democrats, got the House to pass a “gag rule” that forbade discussion of slavery in the House of Representatives. Adams fought tirelessly against the gag rule, and in 1844 he finally succeeded in getting it abolished, by a vote of 108 to 80.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Infant murder, as horrid as slavery and lynching, has become an unprecedented abomination in our country, taking roughly 4,000 lives a day!

Dr. Ben Carson, former presidential candidate and famed neurosurgeon, correlated the two abominations, stating, “During slavery, a lot of slave owners thought they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave; anything that they chose. And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘I don’t believe in slavery, but you guys do whatever you want’? Where would we be?”

Contrasting these three brilliant lovers of humanity and Constitutional rights to life and liberty, consider some of the statements made by avid pro-infant murder advocates in Oklahoma.

State Sen. Ervin Yen described the legislation as “insane” and voted against it.

Amanda Allen, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, stated, “Oklahoma politicians have made it their mission year after year to restrict women’s access to vital health care services, yet this total ban on abortion is a new low. The Center for Reproductive Rights is closely watching this bill and we strongly urge Governor Fallin to reject this cruel and unconstitutional ban.”

Senate Democratic leader John Sparks called Senator Dahm’s bill “an emotional distraction.”

Emotional distraction?

That is what the right to life has degenerated into in the minds of some identifying Americans.

The only reason murder is emotional is because it takes away the fundamental right of a human to have liberty and pursue happiness.  When individuals’ lives are brutally taken, people tend to get emotional. If one has no right to life, whether we are free or slaves, in the words of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,  “What difference does it make”?

I am grateful there is another “Hound of Heaven” on the loose. Senator Nathan Dahm, for the sake of the unborn, override this veto; because in the words of John Quincy Adams, “Duty is ours, results are God’s.”

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Forgotten_Factor_Banner_Ad_653x197

ADVERTISEMENT


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Jake MacAulay serves as the Chief Operating Officer of the Institute on the Constitution (IOTC), an educational outreach that presents the founders’ “American View” of law and government. The former co-host of the syndicated talk show, The Sons of Liberty, he is an ordained minister and has spoken to audiences nation-wide, and has established the American Club, a constitutional study group in public and private schools.
Jake MacAulay
View all articles by Jake MacAulay
Print Friendly
  • DCM7

    “restrict women’s access to vital health care services”

    Once again, those who support abortion cannot even make reference to it without hiding it behind euphemisms.

    • Heard about that. Very sad.

    • DCM7

      One of the comments sums it up nicely:

      “These people have to use euphemisms. To face what abortion actually is… would cause them to have to challenge their entire belief system.”

      • I went through that approx. 23 years ago. It was a terrible thing to have to face the fact that I had supported, even applauded, the slaughter of children. I still feel guilt over that today (and I didn’t even abort any of my own children). But I just couldn’t deny the truth, once I saw where the facts led.

        • I think most people who do support legal abortion are nevertheless uncomfortable with it. If their daughter came home and said they had one, I’d imagine their reaction would be “You did what?”

          The ugly details of later term abortions are rarely discussed or confronted. Most just sort of shield their eyes, so to speak. The facts do need to be confronted, but the tone in which it’s done matters. The ugly pictures of dismembered fetuses seem to make people dig in their heels and resist discussing it. I’m not sure why. Perhaps it’s too difficult to accept that one is not just wrong but egregiously wrong.