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

To: EternalVigilance

“If legislation does not conform to that absolute requirement, it is immoral and unconstitutional.”
____________

And thus you prefer to vote down laws banning abortion after 20 weeks of gestation and preserving the statis-quo ante, which is abortion-on-demand at any point prior to birth. Brilliant!


95 posted on 05/17/2015 9:03:08 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: AuH2ORepublican

I “prefer to vote them down” because they are immoral and unconstitutional, and voting for them violates the first and most crucial sworn obligation of the oath of office.

The multitude of such bills from the “pro-life movement” have done nothing to stop abortion on demand. In fact, they have assured its continuation, since they surrender the only moral, constitutional, and legal arguments against abortion on demand.

Denial of the truth of what I’m saying is the only reason your “status quo ante” exists.

If we would simply demand that every officer of government keep their oath, and back that demand up with action, abortion on demand would stop in this country practically overnight.


98 posted on 05/17/2015 9:25:16 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | 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