Posted on 05/20/2015 6:41:13 AM PDT by wagglebee
I am not defending Roe. Imam acknowledging what is. States can pass laws. The congress could pass a law but won’t. To deride someone (Paul) for his understanding that abortion change must come state by state is disingenuous. Even the homosexual community understood that that was the way forward. I expect conservatives to be at least that smart.
Go to court with that argument. Single issue voters will guarantee a lib president
If it was your God-given, unalienable right to life on the line, you'd be "single-issue" too.
And the fact is, if every person, born or unborn, is not secure in their supreme right, none of your rights are secure either. You're completely at the mercy of the arbitrary will of wicked men.
If you can't stand for what's right simply because it's right, at least stand for others' rights out of pure self-interest.
Paul, just like his father, thinks states can allow abortion if they want to.
Which shows he has no commitment to the most important natural law truths that make up the foundation for the rule of law and our claim to liberty in America.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
It also reveals that he has no regard for the most important explicit requirements of the Constitution he swore to support and defend.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Life is not an issue. It is a right.
And what we have been pointing out is that it does not belong in court. It belongs in the people’s legislature.
Abortion is NOT legal. It can never be legal, because any purported law that withdraws the protection of the homicide laws from any class of people is null.
Roe says that if it is established (they don’t say by whom) that the fetus is a “person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment,” then Roe’s case collapses.
George Bush had a Republican House and Senate for six years. They could have established by law the unborn are persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and then started prosecuting all the governors, attorneys general, state’s attorneys, prosecutors, chiefs of police, etc., who failed to extend the protection of the homicide laws to the unborn. Forget about any state laws specifically referring to abortion. Just prosecute all state officials who do not enforce their states’ homicide laws equitably as required by the 14th Amendment.
If the Supreme Court tries to interfere, Congress can remove abortion from the USSC’s appellate jurisdiction—another action that was never mentioned during the six years Republican controlled the White House, House, and Senate.
BTW: The official purpose of the March for Life has always been the Paramount Human Life Amendment—an absolutely hopeless cause. The March for Life should be officially devoted to removing abortion from the appellate jurisdiction of the USSC.
Then I presume you did not vote for Ronald Reagan.
You do not understand the nature of politics or the art of the possible. Be as single issue as you want. When Hillary becomes president you will be have blood on your hands.
I stand with Ted. I also work on state laws that address the abortion issue
How silly of you. You are condemning Rand for standing for the constitution.
You can ‘point out’ all you want. It has already been in the court. You lost that huge opening solvo. In order to gain any ground back it is time to do so state by state (oh and good luck in California)
I’m silly? You’ve apparently never read the Constitution. It absolutely requires every state to provide equal protection for every person’s rights, starting with the right to live. It doesn’t say that they can allow some disfavored class of persons to be slaughtered, in the name of “states’ rights,” which is what the Pauls have been pushing for decades now.
LOL...
So have you worked in your state to pass a law you would agree with?
That is misstated and tortured logic. Roe v. Wade is part and parcel of the U.S. legal system. What are you doing at the state level to change that?
The equal protection clause provided by the later amendments are not written in the manner which you try to state.
One must deal with the facts as they are not as you wish them to be.
You’re clueless.
Nifster, a court decision does not determine truth, nor does an authority making a proclamation. They are merely obstacles. A state killing babies instead of the fed killing babies is not an acceptable end point. Is it better to have only 25 states killing babies while 25 do not? Yes, in my opinion, but that cannot be the end point regarding justice. The end point remains zero states killing babies.
And the original start if this thread was political. I am discussing political realities and things that can be done.
Wonderful response.
-30-
At least you didn't say 'what is ALLOWED to be done.' What can be done is not limited by current interpretations. So, I that is what you meant, then I agree with you.
It’s all your reply deserved.
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.