From the March 2008 Idaho Observer:

By Hari Heath

Abortion is one of the most divisive social issues of our time. Those with strong opinions for either end of the politically-managed "right-to-life-or-right-to-choose" philosophical debate spectrum are very passionate about their views on the subject. Can there be a socially appropriate use for "abortion" that brings us together—instead of dividing us—as a nation?

There are many good reasons abortion should be legal. Raising an infant to become a positive, successfully contributing member of adult society is a multi decade project. It takes considerable sacrifice, effort and parenting skills—skills most of us don’t have until well after we have begun the project.

If a couple doesn’t want to invest several decades of the prime years of their life into their child or if the pregnancy is the result of a moment of indiscretion or other event that won’t produce a healthy family environment for the would be little human, then maybe abortion is appropriate.

Abortion happens, even when it is illegal. Legal abortion allows it to occur in clinics, which provide greater safety for the would-be mothers. Illegal abortion compels the use of high-risk "back street" abortion practitioners.

The dysfunctional members of our society seem to be increasing in both quantity and quality. They are breeding in exponentially increasing numbers and the socialism of our times seeks to defy natural selection with an artificial carrying capacity. Through neglect and ineptitude those who are not ready, able or willing to be good parents may produce offspring that, perhaps, should have been aborted. Should society compel the unwilling and incompetent to become parents?

The reasons for legal abortion are many, but my bottom line on the subject concludes that abortion is the murder of the unborn; the innocent. All the good reasons for legal abortion can’t trump that primal fact.

American society murders over one million unborn innocents every year. This has gone on for decades. This blood bath of the innocent parallels the human sacrifice rituals of the ancient Mayans, except for two things:

• Abortion is primarily used for convenience and self-interest to remedy a moment of unprotected indiscretion, not to appease the gods with the ultimate sacrifice.

• This mass murder of humanity’s future is quietly committed in a private clinical setting, far from public view, not on an elevated temple platform in the center of the city.

Perhaps the greatest wrong is that the victims are absolutely innocent. Why not limit "abortion" to those who are provably guilty? Abortion means to terminate; to end; to discontinue; to stop. We have no shortage of guilty individuals who need to be stopped. One of the primary places they can be found is within government. Government is a racket that protects its players from any accountability.

We as individuals do not have any legal means of enforcing a wrong committed against us except to petition the judicial system for relief. The present day system of "justice" rarely dispenses anything deserving the name. More often, that system is the source of more wrongs committed against us, laying the foundations for a "chilling effect" against the present and future exercise of our rights.

The government wants to be the exclusive provider of "justice." It has forbid traditional private justice such as common law courts, liens and duels. Even the traditional right to defend oneself and come to the aid of our fellow citizens has been under assault by the masters in government. If you step in and defend yourself or your fellow man during an assault or theft, you may suffer a greater "punishment" for using force, than the perpetrator you attempted to defend against.

The main thing the Constitution lacks is an effective means by which the citizens, individually or collectively, can enforce its terms and mandates upon our public servants in office. Absent any accountability or enforcement, we find ourselves in a position of being the servants, even the slaves, of our "masters" in government. The right to petition is ignored; the election process is a fraud; the courts have inverted justice; the system is broken.

We can argue that the Second Amendment is the enforcement mechanism for citizens to abort tyrannical government. But the Second Amendment is vague and assuming. Its authors had just concluded a violent revolution and formed a nation. They assumed that we would always value and understand what a militia is. They assumed that we would always remember the causes that compelled the revolution they fought and won. They assumed that we would always understand that a "free state" is a "free state of being," not a subdivision of government. They assumed that we would always be able keep the arms of our individual choice; bear them openly or otherwise and have an uninfringed right to use them for our individual and collective defense. In the fog of time and memory, we have lost these things.

Even if we do remember, the Second Amendment is an article of last resort; a reservation of the right to revolution and the means to accomplish it. But how do we invoke it properly? What if we want to abort tyranny before it gets that far? What do we do about individual public servants who have gotten seriously out of hand?

If we as a society can sanction the procedure known as abortion; the murder of over one million innocent, unborn children a year, then surely we can accept a procedure for the "abortion," after the fact, of those who are guilty of a serious breach of their public duties. Ex Post Facto Abortio, or abortion after the fact, could become a lawful procedure to remove the criminal element from government.

Before you think this is an extreme proposal, consider the involuntary servitude and submission we have grown accustomed to under the yoke of the public masters in government. How far have we strayed from the constitutional course?

• We are tax slaves, working five to seven months of the year to pay overt and hidden taxes to government.

• We are compelled to obtain permits and licenses before we can travel, hunt and fish, operate a business, build a house, join in marriage, become a minister, or engage in numerous fields of professional conduct.

• We can be strip-searched at the whim of an unaccountable administrator and have personal property like bottled water and nail clippers stolen from us before boarding an airliner.

• Numerous "agencies" eavesdrop and spy on us. Our homes can be broken into without notice or consent under new "laws."

• We don’t own our homes under the communist system that is actively converting private property through the collection of public rents known as property tax.

• We have a public private partnership of government and corporations—fascism—the vast array of corporate influenced administrative agencies, which have become governments unto themselves.

Do any of these things have roots going back through the chain of constitutional authority to the Constitution? What is left of our Constitution? How can we enforce its mandates on those who should be our servants in public office?

Ex Post Facto Abortio could become a civil remedy; a private process where a private individual could punish the transgressions of public servants outside the controls of the "justice" branch of government. Ex Post Facto Abortio is not an ill-founded, kill-the-bastards program. It requires a redundant and verifiable procedure with substantial due process protections before it can be enforced against the public servant duly evidenced to be in error.

1. The process could begin by issuing a demand for an answer to charges made in an affidavit. The affidavit must clearly articulate and evidence how the public servant has violated the Constitution and/or the law and show how the affiant has been seriously harmed by the action of the public servant.

2. An independent process server or other party should serve the affidavit upon the public servant who can certify that the public servant received the affidavit. The public servant would then have a reasonable period of time to respond to the charges, by affidavit, delivered to the original affiant.

3. If the public servant can show the lawful and proper basis of their complained of actions, then the Ex Post Facto Abortio process is stopped. If the public servant fails to answer or does not provide answers that sufficiently address the subject, then the original affiant can give notice to that effect, in affidavit form, with proper service upon the public servant and, again, give the public servant a prescribed amount of time to answer.

4. If the public servant fails to answer a second time, then the affiant begins the final steps in the process to issue the great writ of Ex Post Facto Abortio. First the affiant will have to publish a legal notice in an appropriate newspaper of record of the intent to issue the great writ of Ex Post Facto Abortio, giving the public servant one last time to answer. True copies of all the affidavits and certificates of service related to the action should be filed and recorded with the local auditor-recorder. If the public servant fails, for the third time, to answer the charges in a timely manner, the original affiant may then issue the great writ of Ex Post Facto Abortio and record it with the county auditor-recorder.

Enforcement of the great writ could take several forms or degrees, depending on the will of the issuer. It may only demand compensation and the public servant’s resignation from public office. Ultimately, the Ex Post Facto Abortio or final termination of the public-servant-turned-perpetrator is likely to become necessary.

If the public servant does not provide the compensation demanded and resign their office by a certain time specified in the writ, then they may be lawfully hunted down and put to final justice—aborted after the fact.

[Note: The process described is much more lawful and procedural than what is currently in place to compel civilian compliance with idiotic laws. At this juncture, police are authorized to use deadly force while enforcing the "law"—regardless of the nature of the original infraction—without proper notice and due process ~DWH].

The Founders of our nation pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor in the Declaration of Independence. Shouldn’t those who violate the sacred trust of our nation pay with their lives and fortunes?

The great writ would essentially declare open season on the privately convicted perpetrator, enforceable by anyone as long as their method of "abortion after the fact" was not overly cruel. The public-servant- turned-perpetrator would then be faced with a choice of lawful death at the hands of the citizenry or permanently fleeing the jurisdiction wherein the writ was issued.

Traditionally, a properly tied rope and a gallows or convenient tree was used to dispatch the criminal element. Such an execution is a clean and humane method that has long been used on the guilty.

Wouldn’t that change the landscape of the political world? Would our masters in government quickly relearn their proper role as public servants? Is this a fair way to provide a long overdue enforcement of our Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof?

The cronyism, usurpation and perversion of our government would come to an end when a lawful open season is declared on deserving individuals. The great writ of Ex Post Facto Abortio should not be issued for light and transient causes or petty grievances. However, serious violations deserve real remedy—something that is not available now. The Ex Post Facto Abortio procedure provides more due process elements than most of the people presently in prison have been afforded.

Look at the state of our present economy and the fascistic fiat empire that has grown up around the Federal Reserve and its unlimited credit creation. The Coinage Act of 1792 provided for the minting of our national currency and specified the penalty of hanging for any U.S. Mint employee who debased the currency. We took our money seriously then and it was a stable medium of exchange until the Federal Reserve System usurped our economy.

Article 3, Section 3, of the Federal Constitution defines treason, proof and punishment: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Does treason govern America today? Is the "War on Drugs," for example, a war levied against the United States and its people to maintain a profitable black market enterprise and fund black operations and undeclared wars? When BATF agents act to prevent the free and unfettered access, possession and bearing of arms are they not adhering to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort?

The list of the public servants and agencies actively engaged in a war against our constitutional nation, adhering to our enemies and giving them aid and comfort is endless. Title 18, USC, section 2381 declares:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

The constitution only requires "the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act." An Ex Post Facto Abortio affidavit process with two or more affiants may suffice as a conviction for such treason. The penalty of death and the permanent removal from office are already statutorily enshrined for such grievous crimes.

Properly used to great effect, Ex Post Facto Abortio could assume its due place as the 21^st century addition to the other great common law writs of habeas corpus, mandamus and quo warranto.