Obama threatens veto as fetal pain bill passes House

cna ^ | June 19, 2013 | Adelaide Mena

[DSH]

". . . I guess my analysis would go along the lines that the Supreme Court having authorized abortion on the basis of the "right of privacy" that arises from the "penumbras' emanated by the various rights enumerated under the Bill of Rights and later amendments to the Constitution, then the Congress would have the power to limit or overturn that decision through legislation."

But even if Roe and its progeny could be limited or overturned in this way, that still wouldn't serve to provide Congress with the constitutional authority to enact a federal law that exercised basic police powers in this fashion. In simple terms, Roe didn't serve to "make abortion legal"; it operated to strike down (as ostensibly "unconstitutional") any state laws that made abortion "illegal." I don't recall off the top of my head whether, as of 1973, when Roe was handed down, any states permitted -- that is to say, didn't criminalize -- abortion, but if there were is, Roe wouldn't have had any effect on those state laws. In those states (if there were any at the time, abortion already was legal.

Thus, even if Congress could somehow cabin the reach of the constitutional "right of privacy," that wouldn't extend to Congress any authority to then prohibit or criminalize some particular abortion practice. That's a different constitutional issue altogether.

[muawiyah]

The fact Democrats approve of and encourage the practice of dismembering human children as they writhe in pain is reason enough to consider Democrats LESS THAN HUMAN ~ AS ANIMALS.

[muawiyah]

Both he and the Hildabeast are at least acolytes.