Articles by Friends

Abortion- Endangered Species Act

Dateline - 1973
by John Andersen lll

1973... a year to remember. I was 19 and serving in the Army in Germany. Nixon was president and things were really hot between Israel and the middle east. Stateside news was heating up also. Roe -v- Wade was being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. We all know the outcome of that one. The life of the pre-born child lost before the highest court of this land.

It was ultimately determined by the court that a 'fetus' was not yet a child and was therefore not afforded the same rights and protection under the constitution as those of us who were fortunate enough to experience life outside of the womb. The legal opinion was derived from the belief that life begins outside the womb. Hence . . . LET THE KILLINGS BEGIN.

But wait, that's not all that happened in 1973. The same year that brought this nation abortion on demand brought us the Endangered Species Act or ESA as it is often called.
So what! What does ESA have to do with abortion? I've had several people ask that same question. As a separate issue it would appear to have no relevance in similarity. To be quite honest about it, I would have missed the point behind it too had I not first heard a comment on talk radio that led me to research the subject.

Receiver Coach Ron Brown of University of Nebraska's famed Husker football was the host of a program aired by Grace Bible Institute's radio station KGBI of Omaha.

Larry Porter, an Outdoors writer for the Omaha World Herald, was a guest on the program, a very good mix for a talk radio program. Ron and Larry have an unquestionable love for sports and an even greater love for the Lord Jesus Christ. Larry made a comment during this segment that really made sense. He stated that if you destroy the egg of a bird that is on the endangered species list, you could be fined and imprisoned for the same offense that protects the mother of that egg.

Wow, what a statement. This really got me thinking and as I researched this further, the craziness of the whole matter seemed to grow. The same year (1973) the silver spoon of the U.S. Supreme Court force-fed us Roe-v-Wade because it was determined a fetus was not yet a living citizen of this land and therefore is not extended the protection under due process provided by the laws of this land, on the same side of town, congress had decided on the Endangered Species Act that not only protects 170 species, it also protects its unborn.

That's right, of the 170 species, 3 are amphibians, 56 are birds, 7 are clams, 2 are crustaceans, 29 are fish, 8 are mammals, 21 are reptiles, and 2 are snails (the remaining 42 are plants) and their unborn are all protected by law. (Endangered Species Homepage)

Detailed in the 'Definitions' of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, SEC. 3, para 8 it states "The term fish or wildlife" means any member of the animal kingdom including without limitation any mammal, fish, bird (including any migratory, non migratory, or endangered bird of which protection is also afforded by treaty or other international agreement), amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and includes any part, product, egg, or offspring thereof, or the dead body or parts thereof." (Don't get caught with an eagle's feather that fell from the sky) SEC. 3, para 18 defines the word "take" as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.

Under Prohibited Acts' SEC.9 (a) General, para one (B) we read ...it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to (B) 'take' any such species within the United States or the territorial sea of the United States...'.SEC. 11, para (b)(1) 'Criminal Violation' we are informed that any person who knowingly violates any provision of this ACT, ... upon conviction, be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both..."

Not only does the ESA provide such protection to endangered species and their offspring, it broadens this protection to threatened species and according to SEC. 4, para(e), even species that are not endangered but have a similarity of appearance' are equally protected.
Sure, I've heard the argument that humans are not endangered species. This seems to be a favorite reply in an attempt to divert from the real issue. If you focus on that particular line of thought, you will miss the whole point, that being the government recognizes the life of any unborn species endangered or otherwise unless that unborn happens to be human. The belief that life exists in the womb (or the egg) is not only accepted, it is protected under penalty of federal law... except for humans in the womb.

Another point to ponder... if an endangered species and their unborn are to enjoy such a degree of protection and the human unborn is not because after all, humans are not endangered species, then why spend billions of dollars on medical research to keep us living longer. Could it be that we are able to speak out in our own defense? Well, who speaks for those who can not speak for themselves? God's Word tells us it is our duty to speak in defense of those who can not speak on their own defense. So... what will it be... God's wisdom or mans wisdom?

Now let me see if I can get this straight. In 1973 it was ruled that an unborn child was not considered to be a living being and therefore may be disposed of without due process under the protection of the laws of the United States of America and yet that same year it was passed into law that the unborn of an endangered or threatened species or any species that has a 'similarity of appearance' are protected by law under a penalty of fine and/or imprisonment.

To assure the compliance of this Act, we the tax payers have funded appropriations in the sum of $35,000,000 in 1988, $36,000,000 in 1989, $38,000,000 in 1990, $39,000,000 in 1991 and $41,500,000 in 1992 'to enable the Department of the Interior to carry out such functions and responsibilities as it may have been given under this ACT.'

Kind of makes one to believe we would have been better served had the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision of the Endangered Species Act and Congress had voted on Roe -v- Wade. Come to think of it... why didn't congress take matters into hand. Perhaps the abortion issue was too hot to handle and may cause a voting record to be tarnished beyond repair come election time. After all, supreme court judges need not sweat over the hot potato. They have a life time appointment. Their jobs are secure.

Submitted by: John Andersen lll