James Dobson: Pro-Life Cause May Have to Settle for Overturning Roe, Abortion

Life News ^ | 10/1/10 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Ask most pro-life Americans and they will tell the you the ultimate goal for the pro-life movement is a constitutional amendment recognizing the legal status of unborn children from conception. But former Focus on the Family president and founder James Dobson says that may not be attainable.

Before a constitutional amendment, either federally or in any state, can be recognized, the Supreme Court must be changed to remove its current pro-abortion majority -- pegged by most pro-life legal scholars as 5-4 at best.

Once that happens, the Supreme Court can reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that allowed for virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason and has resulted in more than 52 million abortions since 1973.

When the high court overturns Roe, states may be able to pass their own laws prohibiting abortions, and Dobson says that may have to be good enough for the pro-life movement because getting three-fourths of the states and Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment is an extraordinarily difficult process.

"I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

Dobson's comments also refer to the theory among some pro-life legal observers that the Supreme Court could find the necessary votes to overturn Roe -- throwing the abortion battle back to the states -- but not having enough votes to uphold a constitutional amendment.

The election of President Barack Obama set back the pro-life cause because it allowed him to replace retiring pro-abortion jurists, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, with abortion advocates who will almost assuredly vote to keep Roe and unlimited abortions in place for decades to come.

The pro-life movement won't have the opportunity to replace a pro-abortion Supreme Court judge with the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe until at least 2013, assuming Obama is defeated by a pro-life presidential candidate in the next election.

Dobson, who made the comments, according to a OneNewsNow report, on the Today's Issues program on American Family Radio, also said he applauded pro-life groups and advancements such as better-quality ultrasounds for changing the face of public opinion.

"You can't deny it's a baby," Dobson says. "You see it sucking its thumb, moving and turning cartwheels in its mother's womb."

Recent polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans are both pro-life and strongly support limits such as no tax funding for abortions or parental involvement for teens.

[wagglebee]

While I have the utmost respect for Dr. Dobson, I have to disagree. We must NEVER settle. We take a reversal of Roe and then continue the push for a pro-life Amendment.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[EternalVigilance]

Proof that Dobson, and the writer, are clueless.

[mdmathis6]

I don’t know that he is clueless but i think he has missed the point...the hearts of 90 per cent of Americans need to be changed at minimum before such changes will filter thru to the courts, congress, and bureaucracy( who will fight viciously I assure you!)

[devere]

“I just don’t see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal,” he lamented. “I wish they would, but I don’t think that will happen.”

There is nothing in the US constitution about abortion. Absent a new constitutional amendment, it is a matter for the 50 states to decide.

[EternalVigilance]

The U.S. Constitution says that “no person shall be deprived of life without due process.” Twice. In other words, a fair trial on a capital offense. Scientifically, there is no longer any doubt that from the moment of creation, from fertilization, a new individual human person exists.

Every officer of government, at every level, in every branch, swears before God to uphold that protection of the unalienable right to life.

All we need are officers of government that will keep their oath. Period.

[Lesforlife]

Particularly the writer!

Dr. Dobson signed my Personhood petition so he knows Colorado
has Amendment 62 on the ballot!

Vote yes on 62 if you live in Colorado and believe every baby in
the womb deserves legal protection from the beginning of the
biological development of that tiny girl or boy!!

Personhood for the pre-born. Woo Hoo 62!

[Grunthor]

“James Dobson: Pro-Life Cause May Have to Settle for Overturning Roe, Abortion”

That would be a start. From there you fight the issue in the individual state legislatures. The states. Where it should have stayed to begin with.

[wastedyears]

Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Whatever happened to “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?” I’m quite sure they meant the unborn as well when they wrote that.

[ansel12]

I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

That would pretty much end the Democrat party as we know it.

Conservatives would be mobilized at an intense level within each state, and would come to absolutely dominate many of them, it would also cause state conservatives to have to start meeting with Hispanics and blacks, and get them to get off the fence on abortion.

A new level of deep, and persistent conservatism would permeate every single, congressional district. A few years of that would put us in a position to pass an amendment.

[EternalVigilance]

There is nothing in the US constitution about abortion.

So?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

-- The Ninth Amendment

Have you even read the Constitution? Do you have any concept of unalienable natural rights?

Besides, the Constitution states as its own ultimate purpose to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

What is posterity?

–noun

1. succeeding or future generations collectively.

2. all descendants of one person.

[DManA]

I agree.

And Row-Wade should be overturned because it is bad law. Patently absurd to argue that the Constitution GUARANTEES a right of privacy for this one specific at a time Federal agents are driving up and down streets x-raying our houses.

[Paperdoll]

Satan has his foot firmly in the door to the murder of innocent wee ones not yet born into the world. Add Death with Dignity to that, and Euthanasia cannot be far behind! The reversal of Roe vs Wade should be the centerpiece of the GOP’s new Contract with America. Woe be to all those who withdrew it from the last one!

[DManA]

this one specific act that is.

[EternalVigilance]

Much more importantly, the Constitution guarantees the right to life for every individual person.

[EternalVigilance]

it is a matter for the 50 states to decide.

Other than the supreme right, the right to life, exactly which other unalienable rights do you want "the states to decide"?

[wagglebee]

There is nothing in the US constitution about abortion. Absent a new constitutional amendment, it is a matter for the 50 states to decide.

You couldn't possibly be more wrong.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

First among the Blessings of Liberty is life, for without it, NONE of the other Blessings are viable.

AMENDMENT V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

NO state has the power to take a person's life without due process. Under the "let every state decide" theory, a state could make murder fully legal, but obviously they do not have that power.

The ONLY thing that stands in the way of ending abortion everywhere is to say that the unborn are persons who enjoy Constitutional rights, Justice Blackmun even said this in his opinion in Roe.

[DManA]

Pretty explicitly too. Science is on our side with the question is a fetus a human. Ironically, the pro aborts have go back to ancient christian belief in a quickening to support their contention about the unborn’s status.

[DManA]

For most of its history there was no general Federal law against murder. The penal code is left to the states to define and enforce.