Posted on 05/21/2007 8:26:15 AM PDT by pissant
Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, one of the most fascinating and popular shows on television today, In the Womb on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero, Watching these babies suck their thumbs, smile and cry has led many to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child. For many years now, I have introduced an important piece of legislation that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as elected leaders of this great Nation; protecting our unborn children from harm. I am proud to once again be introducing the Right to Life Act and I am optimistic of its future.
Unfortunately, over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. Mr. Speaker, this is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children--born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, ``If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants'' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.''
Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.
The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing 4 important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting States from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the Federal Government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.
This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any State or Federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.
PELOSI: No. Next?
We shall see.
Oh my gosh. I feel like I’m reading sarcasm.
Praise God for Duncan Hunter. He would be the
RIGHT man for President.
He means what he says and is ALWAYS ahead of the curve.
ditto
BEAUTIFUL!
Though I applaud this legislation, I can’t help commenting on the logical inanity that is a “right to life”.
We cannot grant a right to life. We can grant a right not to be killed/murdered, but we cannot grant life to the dead or ireemediably dying.
Also: can the courts exercise loco parentis for people who have not had a chance to be conceived? They have a “right to life” as potential human beings. A right to life could be read in legal terms as a right to existence that the court must exercise on behalf of all those millions of potential gamete-pairs that never make it into personhood. I doubt we’ld actually get a dystopian future where ovaries are confiscated at menarche and all gametes fertilised by order of the Supreme Court. But why buy into it with sloppy language?
Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Rights come from God, according to our founding documents. Hence, the term.
Though I applaud this legislation, I can’t help commenting on the logical inanity that is a “right to life”. We cannot grant a right to life.
You are right, we cannot. But God already has
We can grant a right not to be killed/murdered, but we cannot grant life to the dead or ireemediably dying. Also: can the courts exercise loco parentis for people who have not had a chance to be conceived? They have a “right to life” as potential human beings. A right to life could be read in legal terms as a right to existence that the court must exercise on behalf of all those millions of potential gamete-pairs that never make it into personhood. I doubt we’ld actually get a dystopian future where ovaries are confiscated at menarche and all gametes fertilised by order of the Supreme Court. But why buy into it with sloppy language? Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Your post is sophistry. Read the statement. "From the moment of conception"
Say “Protection of Life” instead.
Hmmph! So, you would like to change the public recognition of the "terminology" that has been used and immediately recognized around this country -- and shift the focus from the issue being spoken about -- to -- having to explain exactly what the heck you mean (over and over again) by some strange terminology.
"Protection of Life" -- well, that could mean protect those Pandas or wild donkeys or a thousand other species of life around the planet. You might be a PETA person if you start talking like that. But, "Right to Life" -- well, now we know we're not talking about Pandas and wild donkeys; we know we're talking about unborn babies.
Besides, it also fits in perfectly with the Declaration of Independence, in which certain "rights" are unalienable: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There's your "Right to Life", which fits in with the Declaration of Independence. If you start going down the track of "protection of life", besides having to explain all day long what the heck you're talking about, you've moved "out of the category" of "unalienable rights" endowed by our Creator, into the realm of government legislation, in which it is designed to "protect life". That's not a good move.
I'm sure this is the reason it was framed that way in the beginning of this movement.
It sounds like you've been talking to too many lawyers or are one yourself. The terminology "Right to Life" is perfect the way it is...
You know, this is similar to the same kind of issue that some "Israeli thinker" put forward in regards to Israel's "Right to Exist". They were saying that there's no such thing that any other country has to contend with in terms of their "right to exist". It's a given and it's not discussed or subject to agreements and such. And so, they go into a bunch of reasoning that goes to show that the focus should be on the "protection" of Israel, given that its "right to exist" is not something that should be discussed, disputed or subject to agreements.
Well, that sounds all well and good if you're some kind of "policy wonk" in the government, but it doesn't work well out in the real world. About the second sentence that you began, with that idea and people would be going "Huh!??" And then you've lost them. But, say, "Israel's right to exist" and everyone knows what the heck you're talking about.
It's the same thing here, except here, we've also got that very same language in the Declaration of Independence, which defines these rights as from our Creator and not from the government. It sounds like you want to "toss" the language of the Declaration of Independence.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Pro-Life ping!
This is why Duncan Hunter should be the next President.
Duncan who?
Excuse me but I guess you have never read the constitution. Does the phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell? It says we have these inalienable rights. Therefore we do have a right to life and the duty to protect those that haven't been born yet but are definitely alive and to do every thing in our power to make sure they live, barring disease and accident, long enough to be born.
Yes, we can guarantee the right NOT TO BE KILLED(hence the right to life) for an unborn child.
Now I can see why we have never heard of Duncan Hunter.
He is the antithesis of everything the MSM stands for.
I don’t know who works on his campaign, but he needs lots of internet exposure to create the groundswell it will take to rise above the media darlings.
I’ve emailed many of my friends to let them know about him.
Pro-Life PING
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.