American Independent nominee for President; 2004 Republican challenger for IL Senate
God-given right to life from fertilization to natural death
The right to life of all innocent persons, from fertilization to natural death, is God-given and unalienable. That is why we consider it to be a moral imperative to fully establish in law that Personhood is granted by our
Creator to all human beings from the very beginning of their biological development.
For the principled man or woman, no compromise is possible concerning such a critical matter of life and death.
We believe that violators of this supreme right, in words or actions, are unfit for any office of public trust, since any such violation constitutes the breaking of the oath of office and the ultimate destruction of the very basis of our liberty.
Judges who attempt to legislate from the bench, or who abandon the clear principles of our Constitution, must be checked if liberty and justice are to prevail in our society once again.
Because the stated ultimate purpose of the United States Constitution is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” we recognize the personhood of all unborn children and their protection by the
Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
Source: America‘s Independent Party 2008 Platform & Constitution
Aug 20, 2008
Principles in Declaration of Independence prohibit abortion
The Declaration of Independence states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights. But if human beings can decide who is human & who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted.
& similar reasons, abortion must be understood as the unjust taking of a human life, & a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed. Some people talk about “viability” as a test to determine which human offspring have rights that we
must respect, & which do not.
But “might does not make right.” So the mere fact that the person in the womb is wholly in its mother’s physical power & completely dependent upon her for sustenance gives her no right whatsoever with respect to its life
--since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right. Therefore, medical procedures resulting in the death of the unborn child, except as an unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother’s physical life, are impermissible.
Source: Campaign website, www.alankeyes.com, “Issues”
Oct 1, 2007
Embryonic stem cell research experiments with human life
No medical advance, and certainly no material profit, justifies denying the claim to humanity of the embryonic human person. Those who try to justify it are driven from one tortured rationalization to another, none addressing the real issue.
Being undeveloped, unconscious, unattractive, small, or unwanted--these are not reasons that we accept in any other context for failing to respect the wholeness of moral worth that every human being has from his Creator.
Why, therefore, should we accept it in regard to embryonic research?
No--we do not have the right to take human life merely because it is unconscious, or because it is undeveloped or damaged, or for any other reason
that tempts us to deny the equal dignity of all human persons. We ourselves don’t want to be used as the basis for experiments without regard for our humanity--and neither should they.
Source: Campaign website, www.alankeyes.com, “Issues”
Oct 1, 2007
Constitutional amendment defining life from conception
Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?
A: The first and most important thing that we would do is champion an amendment to the United States Constitution that makes it crystal clear that the right to life of all human beings,
from conception to natural death, must be respected. It’s simple. It’s clear. It must be done. I would issue an executive order immediately granting the full protection of the presidency, and every element of the executive branch, to the life in the womb
Preamble to Constitution includes our unborn posterity
We also need to reiterate the truth that, in the Preamble to our Constitution, it makes clear that the ultimate aim of our government is to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Our posterity includes many we can’t even
imagine, who have not yet been born. Surely, it includes those who are sleeping in the womb. I would make sure that no judges were appointed to the Supreme Court who did not strictly respect its mandate to secure the liberties of our posterity.
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench
Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to reversing prior court decision where activist
judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos
Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies, which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be
OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out their little lives? Is that your position?
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion
Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither “perform nor actively promote abortion.” Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy to organizations within the US?
HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?
Q: It’s the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It’s an American law.
BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan’
policy that we wouldn’t use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.
HUNTER: It’s actually a UN policy.
KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually
negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.
Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?
Q: Doesn’t your pro-life stance conflict with your support of the death penaty?
KEYES: It doesn’t conflict at all. Abortion and capital punishment are at different level of moral concern.
OBAMA: It’s unfortunate that with the death penalty
Mr. Keyes respects that people may have a different point of view but with the issue of abortion he has labeled people everything as terrorists to slaveholders to being consistent with Nazism for holding an opposing point of view.
KEYES: Mr. Obama has read the newspapers too much. I don’t call people names. I make arguments. And in point of fact, [the pro-choice stance] is the slaveholder’s position. Slaveholders took the view that black people were not developed enough to be
treated as human beings and therefore can be bought and sold like animals. People looking at the babe in the womb take the view that it is not developed enough to be treated as a human being and therefore can be killed at will.
Running because of Obama’s extreme pro-abortion votes
[In looking over Obama’s] record, I was absolutely convinced that SOMEBODY had to run against Barack Obama! But if [his liberal voting record] had been the only points of difference between us, it would not have been me!
What finally caught my eye,
is when I learned that he had, in April 2002, apparently cast a vote that would continue to allow live birth abortions in the state of Illinois.
Source: Senate announcement speech in Arlington Heights, Illinois
Aug 8, 2004
Constitutional “posterity” implies protecting the unborn
We have to have a human life amendment. The courts have violated the terms of the Constitution. They act as if the unborn are not mentioned in the Constitution, and they lie. In the preamble to the Constitution, regarded as an important and preeminent
statement of the goals and purposes and principles of the whole form of government we have, the Constitution says that our aim is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our posterity are those not yet born.
Source: Organizational website, RenewAmerica.us, “On The Issues”
Aug 3, 2004
Do everything to overthrow Roe vs. Wade to acknowledge God
I will do everything in my power to overthrow Roe vs. Wade and get us back where we belong in the acknowledgment of God. But I have made a conscious resolve, in the face of the great opportunity God has given us, starting with the integrity and courage
of Roy Moore in Alabama. If we are killing our babies today, it is not just because of our lust, and not just because of our indifference, and our desire to achieve our agendas at every cost and indulge our own satisfaction and give in to our own fears.
Source: Ten Commandments rally in Lufkin, Texas
Oct 1, 2003
Withdraws; job done since GOP & V.P. are both pro-life
Talk-radio host Alan Keyes will officially end his long-shot campaign for the Republican presidential nomination next week, but aides said the well-spoken conservative has not yet decided whether to endorse George W. Bush.
“His work is done now that the Republican Party has adopted a pro-life platform and pro-life running mate,” said a Keyes spokesperson. Bush announced Tuesday that Dick Cheney would be his vice presidential running mate.
Source: Reuters, in Boston Globe, p. A15
Jul 27, 2000
Not OK to kill child of 6; not OK to kill child in the womb
[Keyes offered] a civics lesson to fifth graders at a NH school today. “If I were to lose my mind right now and pick one of you up and bash your head against the floor and kill you, would that be right?” A chorus of “No.” “It’s wrong to kill
children, isn’t it? At what age is it right to kill children? Think it was OK to kill you when you were 6?,” Keyes asked one child. The child shook his head no. “Think it was OK to kill you when you were 6 months? You sure? Because we live in a
country right now where according to some of our courts and some of our politicians, it is OK,“ Keyes said. ”Our rights come from God. We human beings don’t have the right to take away that right from any human being, including the human beings
who haven’t quite got here yet. Because we have denied freedom to children in the womb who haven’t yet gotten to this world, freedom will be denied to you and to your brothers and sisters and to your children.“
Source: Boston Globe, p. A27
Jan 28, 2000
God’s choice: “Just Say No” to abortion
KEYES [to McCain]: What you would say if your daughter was ever in a position where she might need an abortion? You answered [earlier today] that the choice would be up to her and then that you’d have a family conference. That displayed a profound lack
of understanding of the basic issue of principle involved in abortion. After all, if your daughter said she was contemplating killing her grandmother for the inheritance, you wouldn’t say, “Let’s have a family conference.” You’d look at her and say “Just
Say No,“ because that is morally wrong. It is God’s choice that that child is in the womb. And for us to usurp that choice in contradiction of our declaration of principles is just as wrong.
McCAIN: I am proud of my pro-life record in public life, and
I will continue to maintain it. I will not draw my children into this discussion. As a leader of a pro-life party with a pro-life position, I will persuade young Americans [to] understand the importance of the preservation of the rights of the unborn.
If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, there can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all, to human offspring in the womb.
But if human beings can decide who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights is utterly corrupted. Abortion is the unjust taking of a human life and a breach of the fundamental principles of our public moral creed.
Source: www.keyes2000.org/issues/abortion.html 1/6/99
Jan 6, 1999
Mothers have no right to take a fetus’ life.
Some people talk about “viability” as a test to determine which offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. The mere fact that the individual in the womb is wholly in its mother’s physical power and completely dependent upon her for
sustenance gives her no right whatsoever with respect to its life. Medical procedures resulting in the death of an unborn child, except as a collateral and unintended consequence of efforts to save the mother’s physical life, are therefore impermissible.
Source: www.keyes2000.org/issues/abortion.html 1/6/99
Jan 6, 1999
Abortion issue epitomizes corruption of freedom
I talk about abortion not just because of the issue in and of itself, but because I think it epitomizes the deeper issue, which is the corruption of our idea of freedom--a corruption that is really killing us. I think abortion is a very dramatic example
of that corruption and its consequences, because obviously that has direct consequences for the heart that we need to sustain the family. If we harden our hearts against our offspring, and if we aggrandize our self-fulfillment to the extent that
we are willing to kill our offspring, that is the extreme case of the self-centered and egotistical and self-worshipping concept of freedom I think is being promoted in various ways in the society.
We are not going to remain a free people if
we arrogate to ourselves the right to destroy the rights of others. And that is exactly what we are doing when we embrace the so-called “pro-choice” agenda--which is actually just the pro-abortion agenda.
I MAKE an exception only for the physical life of the mother. Given the unalienable right to life (i.e., self-preservation) I see no way in principle to avoid making this exception. I would ACCEPT the rape and incest exceptions only as a matter of
political necessity if that is the best legislation we could achieve at the time. I see no grounds in principle for making these exceptions, but as a matter of political prudence it would be suicidal for the pro-life movement to reject these people.