Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mnehring
RE:"Shockingly, Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself," says Darrell Birkey, director of research for American Right To Life, "that the constitutional protection of human rights does not apply to unborn children."

Now come on, the central (made up) find of Roe was that the freedom to have an abortion is a US constitutional right. That is why it nullified all state abortion laws on the books. If all it did was what was stated above abortion would still be illegal in many states.

12 posted on 12/29/2011 9:02:50 PM PST by sickoflibs (You MUST support the lesser of two RINOs or we all die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: sickoflibs

I’m sickoflibs too, but it seems that you’re straining at a gnat. At 32:30 into American Right To Life’s documentary, Focus on the Strategy 2, you can hear Notre Dame law professor Dr. Charles Rice, constitutional expert, make the same point, that the non-personhood of the child is the central finding of Roe v. Wade, that the baby is a “non-person.” The Roe decision itself admits that its own finding about “privacy” would be falsified if the “personhood” of the fetus were established. Thus Ron Paul agrees with the fundamental finding of Roe, that constitutional protection of the rights of persons do not apply to unborn children. It’s tragic.


41 posted on 12/30/2011 12:14:35 PM PST by Bob Enyart (KGOV.com: Moving the world to the right...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson