The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
Posted on 08/11/2014 5:47:24 AM PDT by wagglebee
When I first heard, in the 1990’s, that abortion was legal through all nine months of pregnancy, I couldn’t believe it. If that were true, why would it not be common knowledge? Why would there be debate over where life began? I had just abandoned the pro-choice movement and was researching the pro-life position and was finding most of what they said quite persuasive. But how could abortion be legal until birth? Many other people who I have spoken to also could not believe the law could be so extreme. I snuck into a local law library and read Roe vs. Wade and its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, and discovered the pro-lifers were telling the truth: abortion really is legal through all nine months, in every state, for any reason, and has been since 1973.
As I’ve written elsewhere: Either by design or by accident, our law is confusing in the extreme. The Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade made it seem as if only early abortion was legal, saying that the states, if they wished, could make late abortion illegal. They can’t. In Roe vs. Wade’s companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, the High Court squashed the states’ right to make third trimester abortions illegal.
The details are important. Roe said the states could make third trimester abortion illegal unless the woman’s “life or health” was endangered. We should already be suspicious – why mention “life” if “health” is enough to get a third trimester abortion? If a woman’s life is endangered, certainly her health in endangered. Maybe the justices were trying to seem as if such late abortion were only to be legal in very rare circumstances. The Supreme Court defined “health” as “all factors, physical, emotional, psychological and familial” and included the woman’s marital status and age. Only one other doctor aside from the abortionist has to attest to the woman’s “health.” So, the states can prohibit late abortion, except when one of “all factors” comes to pass – in other words, the states cannot prohibit any abortion! This is dishonest and misleading!
The definition of “health” was not included in the main case, Roe, but concealed over in Doe, which most people have never heard of! Both cases are “of course, to be read together,” so everything in one case pertains to the other! This is another indication that the Supreme Court Justices were being disingenuous! But of course the entire undertaking is illegitimate because the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, so how can any of it be a Constitutional right?! I urge readers who don’t believe me to peruse the High Court decisions themselves.
As I went back and forth, reading the two decisions, which were written by the late Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, I kept wondering why the author kept contradicting himself. “Doesn’t he know what he wrote in the other decision?” I asked myself. “Of course he knows – he’s lying through his teeth!” I slammed my hand on the table.
I could not understand why people in the news like Peter Jennings were not alerting the public to the true nature of the law, and it was there that my true political education began. There seemed to be a conspiracy afoot to conceal from the public the case against nine-month pro-choicers (those who support unqualified abortion).
If Justice Blackmun had been candid, he would have included a note in Roe that he had a special definition of health in Doe. He also would have had noted in Doe by the definition of health, that it pertained to the trimester scheme in Roe. What is the purpose of the trimester scheme anyway? Would it not be simpler just to say abortion is always legal until birth? Maybe the purpose of the scheme is to deceive the reader into thinking the law was a compromise.
Of course, very few abortions are committed on viable children, especially in comparison with early abortion. But that is not the point. The nine-month nature of our law strongly suggests that it is unconstitutional and that those who defend it are crackpots and nutjobs. The legality of late abortion completely alters the debate over abortion, taking attention away from the myopic focus on rape, incest and “when does life begin?” The six arguments that make up the core pro-choice position all demand nine month abortion, and once a person understands the law, it is a simple matter to dismiss these arguments.
In his debate with Senator McCain, then-Senator Obama said, “I am completely supportive of a ban on late term abortion … as long as there’s an exception for the woman’s health and life.” McCain had trouble explaining the health loophole because it is so complicated. The various Freedom of Choice Acts, meant to legislatively emulate Roe and Doe should those decisions be overturned, have their own health loopholes. It is clear that the health loophole is a powerful tool for nine-month pro-choicers to hide their own extremism.
Imagine how the public would appraise Presidents Obama and Clinton if they knew these presidents were nine-month pro-choicers. Consider the fight that would break out each time we had to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. Americans would have a very different understanding of the importance of this issue and how much attention it warranted.
The book I most strongly recommend on abortion is Randy Alcorn’s “Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments,” which addresses this problem. After discussing a Gallup public opinion poll that shows that most Americans want most abortion to be illegal, Alcorn writes this:
“In reference to the 1991 Gallup poll, the Washington Times asked and answered a critical question: ‘So why has there been no tidal wave of opposition to the legal status quo of abortion-on-demand? Simply this: Americans don’t know what the abortion laws say.’
The most startling discovery of the Gallup poll was that only 11 percent of Americans have an accurate understanding that abortion is available throughout all nine months of pregnancy….
In the words of Victor Rosenblum, past president of the Association of American Law Schools, the poll revealed that ‘an overwhelming majority of Americans simply do not understand what is allowed under current law. In many cases, it appears that people who consider themselves ‘pro-choice’ simply don’t know what they’re supporting.’ The poll shows that if they did know, many would not support it.”
Why doesn’t the public understand the law? Because the media is not covering the issue in a professional manner. They don’t show images of unborn children alive, dead or in the process of being killed. The media do not use candid language when discussing abortion, like using terms like “kill” and “baby.” They do not address the full scope of abortion, such as second and third trimester abortions.
According to Professor John Potts, in an essay in the book, “When Life and Choice Collide; Essays on Rhetoric and Abortion”, edited by David Mall, the problem of the nine month law being misunderstood by the public can be seen at Newsweek magazine. A spokesman for Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, a public interest law firm based in Chicago, was interviewed by a Newsweek reporter who “painstakingly describe[d] the extreme nature of the opinions in Roe and Doe, making particular reference to the availability of abortion in the third trimester for reason of maternal health and the meaning of the word ‘health’ as used in the abortion context.”
Potts writes “… In reporting on the last trimester, Newsweek magazine on June 27, 1983 wrote that in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court … held that states … in the final months, except where a mother’s life was at stake … could prohibit abortions entirely to protect the unborn child.” (emphasis added).
Writes John Potts: “Newsweek’s statement stands in striking contrast to the conclusions of the Roe-Doe axis. The statement is not just misleading. The error is not a judgmental difference. Neither is it merely arguably wrong. It is absolutely and categorically false…This constitutes an egregious error on an important matter.”
Professor Potts promptly reported the error in a letter. No response. Potts and his colleague, Professor Richard Stith wrote another letter threatening to file a formal complaint. Still nothing. So, two months after initially writing to Newsweek, Potts and Stith brought the matter to the attention of The National News Council by letter, and sent a copy of the letter to Newsweek. The magazine responded that Potts was correct that abortions were allowed in response to “life and health” but “[t]he sentence in question was inadvertently truncated while proceeding through the editorial process.” Newsweek also said it was unable to print the letters from the professors in the magazine. But this is not the only time Newsweek misreported the trimester scheme. During the period that Professor Potts examined the magazine, it got the trimester scheme wrong five out of six times.
One wonders if all of this is really a mistake, or if it is an intentional policy to conceal from the public criticism of the pro-choice position. One wonders too if this deficit is limited to Newsweek or if it is a pattern through all the mainstream media. It is hard to believe that a free democracy could have a nine month abortion law, let alone one that the public was not aware of after so much time. Considering its impact on killing over 50 million American unborn children, the trimester scheme and its apparent coverup could be one of the most destructive lies ever told.
It is even used by a lot of people who label themselves conservatives to discretely support abortion.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
The oligarchs controlling democrat politicians want more dead humans, not less. Killing the ‘less desirable’ members of the human species is a goal in the agenda 21 driven dead souls. The evil of it is so exposed that those being exploited to carry out the evil don't even recognize how they are being manipulated. Democrats have been so successful in slaughtering the posterity of black people that now these democrip oligarchs must create invasions of Hispanics to fill the voting roles which are in danger of being 'out voted'.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarter's Expenses?
When the late “justice” Blackmun went slithering into Hell, he instantly changed to being pro-life....but it was FOREVER TOO LATE!
When Roe was passed even the pro-aborts could not believe that they got abortion - nine full months.
When Roe, the lie of greatest degree, was passed, it was legal to terminate a pregnancy in all the states on the decision of the attending physician that the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother. Those behind the great lies told to get Roe passed had ‘other’ goals in mind, namely control of less desirable population groups and utilitarian killing in the name of enlightened social order.
How the heck can the Supreme Court do that?!?!
The Constitution is the Constitution and the SC can determine whether something lines up with it, but they cannot violate it.
They can't overrule the states rights clause.
I am anti-abortion, pro infanticide.
But only if the infanticide is carried out directly by the mother with her own two hands, if she doesn’t want the kid, the doctor delivers it, then leaves the room, she then has the option of putting it in baby basket (where it will be taken to an adoption agency), or strangling it to death with her OWN two hands. (with the caveat that she do it within 12 hours of the birth).
We have turned doctor’s into hitmen called abortionists.
Make the mother make the call and make her do the deed herself, the progrssives love nature so much and like to equate humans with animals, this is another great way for them to bear their fruits and choke on them. Animal mothers in the wild will eat their own young, is it too much to ask for a human mother to stangle her own unwanted child on her own? You know they want their moral equivalence... Give it to them, but make it so unpalatable that “abortion, which is infanticide under another name, becomes truly rare”.
Stop the staining of another’s hands for such an evil deed.
Treat it like it truly is..
[ When Roe was passed even the pro-aborts could not believe that they got abortion - nine full months. ]
And people are afraid of an article V convention of tyhe states to try to reign in the Supreme Court with term limits and majority states veto of Supreme court decisions.....
I have to laugh at that...
Welcome to the ongoing constitutional convention that is the Supreme Court, the nine not-so-wisemen and hags that control our destiny...
[ In Roe vs. Wade’s companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, the High Court squashed the states’ right to make third trimester abortions illegal.
How the heck can the Supreme Court do that?!?!
The Constitution is the Constitution and the SC can determine whether something lines up with it, but they cannot violate it.
They can’t overrule the states rights clause. ]
Ha Ha, the Supreme Court is an ongoing CON-CON influenced by CON-MEN....
[ When Roe, the lie of greatest degree, was passed, it was legal to terminate a pregnancy in all the states on the decision of the attending physician that the pregnancy endangered the life of the mother. Those behind the great lies told to get Roe passed had ‘other’ goals in mind, namely control of less desirable population groups and utilitarian killing in the name of enlightened social order. ]
Indeed, the lie that it was needed to protect the mother’s life was already handled by conventinal medical ethics. In their quest to to remove respinsibility FROM the mother to a question of CONVEINENCE for the mother, they turned a whole generation of Doctors in HITMEN.
Abortion to protect as mother’s life was already a very rare thing indeed, the Lie of Roe v. Wade was to supposedly make it “Safe and Rare” did neither.
You are pro-infanticide?... Maybe you should take a closer look at that ...
[ You are pro-infanticide?... Maybe you should take a closer look at that ... ]
Did you read my entire post? My position is to present a “solomon’s choice” to the society at large and make it such a disgusting thing that it would make both illegal.
I am anti-abortion, pro infanticide. But only if the infanticide is carried out directly by the mother with her own two hands,
So you are pro-infanticide if it fits your agenda?
She just explained what she meant; she is obviously using it as a literary device to try to motivate women not to kill their own babies.
[ From post #8, quoting you :
I am anti-abortion, pro infanticide. But only if the infanticide is carried out directly by the mother with her own two hands,
So you are pro-infanticide if it fits your agenda? ]
But WHY?
Read My whole post please and try to THINK WHY I am making this point.
[ But only if the infanticide is carried out directly by the mother with her own two hands, if she doesn’t want the kid, the doctor delivers it, then leaves the room, she then has the option of putting it in baby basket (where it will be taken to an adoption agency), or strangling it to death with her OWN two hands. (with the caveat that she do it within 12 hours of the birth).
We have turned doctor’s into hitmen called abortionists.
Make the mother make the call and make her do the deed herself, the progrssives love nature so much and like to equate humans with animals, this is another great way for them to bear their fruits and choke on them. Animal mothers in the wild will eat their own young, is it too much to ask for a human mother to stangle her own unwanted child on her own? You know they want their moral equivalence... Give it to them, but make it so unpalatable that “abortion, which is infanticide under another name, becomes truly rare”.
Stop the staining of another’s hands for such an evil deed.
Treat it like it truly is.. ]
Society has been shielded from the fact that Abortion IS Infaticide. It has been shielded from this due to the fact that the Abortion Process as carried out like a medical procedure has “sanitized” the process of Infanticide in the public conciousness.
A couple of points:
1. Abortion “Doctors” have become legal hitman hired for conveinince.
2. People have been disconnected formt he process, especially the mothers that are talked into the process by their family, friends, and lovers because it is easy to talk someone into getting a supposed safe edical procedure. How hard would it be for them to talk someone into strangling their own baby to death with their own two hands vs. giving the child up for adoption? A HELL OF A LOT HARDER.
3. I am NOT actually PRO-INFANTICIDE, I said that for shock value you see so that you could read my post and realize that society at large will need to be grabbed by the lapel and shook back into sanity and mabye slapped around a bit.
4. If we made pre-birth infanticide ILLEGAL on the caveat that Post-Birth Infanticide by the mother’s own hands legal, it wouldn’t stay legal for long as people might actually wake the hell up and realize abortion for what it really is.
5. Are you calling Solomon a child killer for ordering the baby be cut in half? (think about it).
My position is a Society wide “Solomon’s Argument” on the subject of Abortion as a way to End the barbaric practice once and for all.
[ So you are pro-infanticide if it fits your agenda?
She just explained what she meant; she is obviously using it as a literary device to try to motivate women not to kill their own babies. ]
Thank you for thinking! I appreciate it! And you summed up my intent very aptly.
But only if the infanticide is carried out directly by the mother with her own two hands, if she doesn’t want the kid, the doctor delivers it, then leaves the room, she then has the option of putting it in baby basket (where it will be taken to an adoption agency), or strangling it to death with her OWN two hands. (with the caveat that she do it within 12 hours of the birth).
Is this sarcasm?
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.