In the current liberal media ravings, we are hearing the term "litmus test" repeatedly spun in a negative light. In a recent ABC interview, Vice President Gore seemed unwilling to use the term, relative to his possible future Supreme Court nominees. It was obvious, from his rhetoric, that there would be a pro-abortion litmus test, but he was uncomfortable with that particular terminology.

John McCain, obviously uncomfortable with the term, answered in a November "Meet the Press" interview "Absolutely no litmus test." Probably all of the presidential candidates have been asked the same questions about litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees, and for Vice-presidential running mate choices. An excellent web page for finding their answers on this issue, and on lots of other issues, can be found at issues2000.org.

I remember the first time I heard "litmus test" used in a sentence. The reason I remember it is that my all-time favorite school teacher, Mrs. Schwartzwalter, used it in a fifth grade history class on our American Constitution. First, she read the words of the preamble. Her reading was slow, and deliberate, as if to imply that this was her most treasured teaching.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." After a few minutes of interpreting, and explaining word meanings, she asked if we understood the basic purpose of those particular words, as related to the whole of the Constitution, and to our form of government.

When we could not answer, she gave us the most positive use of the term "litmus test," that I can imagine. She stated, simply: "The preamble is intended as a litmus test for just laws."

In my considered opinion, the best proof of her teaching is the 1973 Supreme Court legislation "Roe v. Wade." Perhaps if the Supreme Court justices had understood the preamble, as she did, America would not have been saddled with this abomination. Can any reasonably sane person, with a modicum of intelligence, and with a straight face, use any of the words "justice," or "domestic tranquility," or "promote the general welfare" in definition or defense of Roe?

The first, and most important of these "blessings of liberty" has to be LIFE, an unalienable right, creator endowed, and a self evident truth. Without this blessing, the rest is meaningless, purposeless babble. Can we secure these blessings of liberty to ourselves, and not to our posterity, and still call ourselves free? If these blessings of liberty are not secured for our "posterity", neither are they secure for any of us!

We can take heart in the knowledge that there are certain individuals in the congress that are able to reason intelligently, and that have proposed the overturn of the abominable Roe. There have been several of these bills introduced, both in the House and in the Senate, this year (1999). My two favorites are Senator Jesse Helms' "Unborn Children's Civil Rights Act (S 40 PCS)," and Senator Bob Smith's "Right to Life Act of 1999 (S 907 IS)."

S 40 PCS was introduced in mid January, and was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar. The bill effectively sets the record straight with three findings: (1) Scientific evidence demonstrates that abortion takes the life of an unborn child who is a living human being; (2) a right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution; and (3) In the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton the Supreme Court erred in not recognizing the humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the States in protecting the life of each person before birth. It also provides for Supreme Court review of lower court decisions which declare State and local anti-abortion statutes unconstitutional.

S 907 IS was introduced by Senator Smith on April 28th, resulting in a referral to the Committee on the Judiciary. There are nine excellent findings in this bill, worthy of the attention of the entire nation:

(1) We, as a Nation, have declared that the unalienable right to life endowed by Our Creator is guaranteed by our Constitution for each human person;

(2) The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, stated: 'We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer . . .';

(3) The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, stated: 'If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the (fourteenth) Amendment . . .';

(4) The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, stated that the privacy right is not absolute, and stated that: 'The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later a fetus. . . . The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.';

(5) A human father and mother beget a human offspring when the father's sperm fertilizes the mother's ovum, and the life of each preborn human person begins at fertilization.;

(6) There is no justification for any Federal, State, or private action intentionally to kill an innocent born or preborn human person, and that Federal, State, and private action must assure equal care and protection for the right to life of both a pregnant mother and her preborn child in existence at fertilization.;

(7) Americans and our society suffer from the evils of killing even one innocent born or preborn human person, and each day suffer the torture and slaughter of an estimated 4,000 preborn persons.;

(8) The intentional killing of preborn human persons occurs in Federal enclaves, in interstate commerce activities, and in the States, estimated at 1,500,000 per year and 33,000,000 since 1973.; and

(9) The violence of intentionally killing a preborn human person has provoked more violence, carnage, and conflict reaching into homes, schools, churches, workplaces and lives of Americans.

I will argue with anyone who calls me a "single issue voter." I do believe in prioritizing my reasons to vote, or not, for a particular candidate. The liberal media's incessant negative slant on "litmus tests" have made me struggle with pride, that I have a whole list of litmus tests. At the very top of my list of tests is the question "Is the candidate PRO-LIFE?" Years ago I concluded that if a leader in America makes the mistake of being pro death, he most certainly will make many mistakes on many other issues.

America needs restoration! We must not continue to choke on the words "under God" and "with liberty and justice for all," when we are called to pledge our allegiance. We would do well to adopt a paradigm proposed by the American author, Henry David Thoreau, in his 1849 "Resistance to Civil Government." "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."

Job 33:4