Posted on 01/16/2005 1:54:25 PM PST by cpforlife.org
A person is Pro-Life only to the degree to which they are willing to actually “do something about it”. I’ve been Pro-Life my entire life but until 7 or so years ago I did not do a thing about it. I still am not doing everything possible that I can do, but I am trying and getting better with time.
President Bush, whom I spent much time, effort, and resources for on both his bids for the White House is Pro-Life with such exceptions and compromises as to make the claim an insult to the 6 million babies that have been dismembered since he took office. Yes I believe President Bush is personally against abortion, but the actions he has taken thus far have saved very few, if any lives.
The president can, under his Constitutional authority refuse to enforce an unconstitutional opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts. [1] “Pro-Life” Bush on any given day over the last 4 years could have broken the tyrannical holocaust of the Roe v Wade OPINION, which would then let the States' decide, as was the situation prior to Roe. 30 states have laws on the books banning or restricting abortion, and President Bush could have signed a piece of paper allowing those laws to be enforced. Since his party is in control of both houses of Congress there is virtually no chance that he would have been impeached let alone removed for such a brave and just act as this. If Bush were a true committed Pro-Lifer he would have used this authority, which has been used at least 3 times in history on FAR LESS SERIOUS MATTERS AS 4,000 murders a day every day for 32 years.
Bush signed The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2004. I’m sure he knew that other than the tremendous educational and public awareness impact (which is very good) the law was meaningless because all the serial killer abortionist had to do to stay “within the law” was give a lethal injection to the child prior to partial delivery and sucking his brains out.
President Bush has also had the opportunity for no less than two years to champion legislation that would have ended the holocaust precipitated by Roe [2]. His silence on this life saving legislation is at the same deafening level as everyone else, as only 2 or 3 Congressmen joined to co sponsor the different legislation, so I’m not singling Dubya out.
The only way the holocaust will end is with real and courageous leadership from Capitol Hill and the White House, from Pro-Lifers who are willing to do real battle for the babies, and for the Constitution.
President Bush is a hero on the war on terror, and I believe still can be a FAR GREATER hero, if he would do all that he can do to stop the murderous terror of American waiting to be born.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]Executive dissent with unconstitutional majority opinion
The President takes an oath of office Article 6, Clause 3 "to support this Constitution" and not the penumbras emanating from deviant dicta and unconstitutional opinion. The President can present his case of dissent to the public in a public address, executive orders, through members of his cabinet and through members of his party. He can act on his opinion, by not enforcing Roe v Wade and progeny against the States. States could legislate as they did prior to the 1973 unconstitutional opinion.
The following quote from Andrew Jackson is a concise statement of Constitutional principal that has been ignored, or forgotten for many decades. The prevailing myth seems to be that the Constitution is what the federal judiciary says it is, regardless of the extent of deviation from text or intent, and that all others who are bound by an oath of Office in Article 6, Clause 3 are forbidden to act on their understanding of the text they are sworn to uphold.
Article 6, Clause 3 contains no Oath or Affirmation to support any federal judicial opinion. The plain text of the Constitution reveals separation of powers, checks & balances and coordinate functioning of three branches that are not coequal in power. Power of impeachment, funding, regulation of lower federal court jurisdiction and the U.S. Supreme appelate jurisdiction resides in Congress. The President has the power of enforcement and isn't Constitutionally, legally, or ethically required to blindly enforce blatantly unconstitutional opinions. The Supreme Court has only the power of opinion, which has become far more biased in its increasing disregard of plain text than the mainstream media has been in its disregard of plain fact.
The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
[2] We the People Act (HR 3893)- Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Pro-Life and Pro-Family groups and individuals must learn about this incredible piece of life saving legislation and call write fax e-mail their Representatives to demand that they co-sponsor and champion this legislation.
What you are saying is that you only believe that the protection of the right not to be killed by government and society can be limited by what you consider wanted and worthwhile. While those of us who are prolife would protect all humans, and all our offspring, without discrimination based on our own personal beliefs, circumstances or finances.
Look in your local phone book or Google for "Crisis Pregnancy Center" or "Abortion Alternatives" in your town.
We are already doing what you talk about. With our own money and without the threat of guns, prison, and confiscation of property that comes with tax-funded programs.
What if all of the money that your side spends on Emily's List, Jane's Due Process (in Texas, just a way to circumvent parental involvement in their minor daughter's lives), and all the money funneled to Planned Parenthood for abortion referrals and the abortions themselves could be spent on nurturing women and children?
What if the 40 million to 45 million children who have been aborted in this nation were now working and paying into Social Security, Medicare and Income Tax?
What if the minds and hearts that have been wasted by the deaths of abortion could have been put to work on the problems of this nation?
What if we did not teach our children, our young men and women that human beings are only worth protection if and when they are wanted?
This would be a better nation and world.
You might as well say that "No law will stop one single murder (enslavement, kidnapping, rape, theft, etc)...."
Think about the consequences of slavery being outlawed. That worked, didn't it?
Of course, laws against abortion will decrease abortions and in fact, decrease pregnancies. The history of Poland in the last 20 years has proven a sample, a "lab," for just this scenario. It turns out that men and women change their behavior as far as risk of pregnancy according to abortion regulations.
If you want to learn more, "Abortion as Insurance" (an economic look at abortion regulation and the effects on rates of pregnancy and abortions):
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/B-SPAN/sub_ab_insurance.htm
http://www.jcpr.org/wp/wpprofile.cfm?id=337
But, the vast majority of Americans will simply not tolerate a President who defies the judicial branch of the United States
YOU COULD HELP CHANGE THAT!
The answer is in post #122
POST #122
Please take a look at the evidence given in my post # 123.
I strongly disagree with the premise of this post. The President could not do what it is suggested in this blurb that he could do, without a backlash that would leave us reeling, and which would become a Constitutional crisis. (Roe v. Wade should have resulted in just such a crisis.)
I doubt sincerely that the result would be a Constitutional amendment, unless it was an amendment to strip the Executive branch of power.
Our President has done more to promote the conversation and conversion of the people in this nation than anyone else in public office.
apparently not.
berating the president however, seems to be the top priority.
We'll open our collective eyes when we SHOW the world what an abortion really is
Evidence and solution:
I don't like spam any more here than I do in my e-mail -- do you?
Then stop posting.
When will elected officials exercise the political will to do what is necessary to overturn Roe v. Wade?
….only when the pro-life movement, its leaders and its supporters, speak with one voice, with no exception and no compromise.
For more than 29 years millions of us have done whatever we could on many fronts to restore respect for life in our country. Nearly 50 million dead babies and wounded mothers later, we are still no closer to our goal of legal protection of unborn babies….
The AP reported on January 20 that, "Mr. Bush called on Americans to ‘reject the notion that some lives are less worthy of protection than others’ . . ." A noble thought, and one we share, but how will that happen when the President himself has never said that he would do anything to try to overturn Roe? How can that happen when he, and many politicians in the Republican Party have clearly said that abortion can be justified in some cases? How can that happen when President Bush’s own position contradicts the proclamation? Indeed, he supports "exceptions" for babies conceived through rape or incest, a view that deems those babies "less worthy of protection than others." How can that happen when the President and others in power think abortion is justified if the mother’s life is in jeopardy, when today’s medical science and technology make it unnecessary to ever kill a baby to save his mother’s life? How can it happen when Laura Bush, First Lady of the land and the person closest to the President joins his mother, Barbara Bush, in saying that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned?
Beyond that, how can protection of the right to life be restored when important leaders in the pro-life movement endorse as "pro-life" politicians whose commitment and actions do not match their rhetoric? How can it be restored as long as grassroots pro-lifers don’t demand, in exchange for their support, that candidates take a position on innocent life at every stage of development that leaves no room for "exceptions" or compromise? ….As long as pro-lifers are willing to bestow the "pro-life" mantle on politicians who truly are not, abortion, deadly experiments on human embryos, human cloning, and yes, infanticide, will remain legal.
The exception makes the rule.
And so, we pray for unity in the pro-life movement. The politicians will say and do what they think they must to get our support. The outcome is our responsibility. If we are to succeed in this our Godly mission, we must demand of them total respect for all innocent life - no exceptions, no compromise. Republican National Coalition for Life - January 22, 2002
"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."
Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).
"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power [1]; that it can never attack with success either of the other two;
[Footnote 1] The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ""Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.''" ""Spirit of Laws.''" vol. i., page 186.
The law-breaking branch of the federal government has become move powerful than the law making branch, the President and even the Constitution.
How did five out of nine judges on the U.S. Supreme Court become so infallible that no one questions anything they say? When the Most High Court speaks, the nation must prostrate fall. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, during his confirmation hearings, said that he would not attempt to overturn Roe v.Wade and that he considered it the "settled law of the land." The abortion edicts from the Supreme Court aren't acts of Congress, nor a constitutional amendment, but a supposedly pro-life politician declares that those edicts are "settled law."
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to break as many laws as they have, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the law making process? Why did Marshall have to derive the doctrine of judicial review in Marbury v Madison? Why wasn't it explicitly stated in the Constitution?
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to amend the Constitution, why does the Constitution prohibit them from being involved in the amendment process? If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to enforce their own opinion, why does the Constitution leave that option with the President?
If the U.S. Supreme Court was intended to be equal to, or above the written Constitution, why does the Constitution state, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…. and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides the means for Congress to overthrow the law-breaking branch of the federal government and allow states to mend their broken laws. In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) was only supported by two members of the U.S. House, and virtually unheard of, or promoted by the pro-life constituency.
It is past time to terminate the rule of broken law contained in the unconscionable and unconstitutional edicts of the U.S. Supreme court.
We the People Act needs to be reintroduced and passed by the 109th Congress and restore the rule of Law.
In the 2000 primaries all the other Republican candidates (Keyes, Buaer, Buchanan, Forbes...)were competing against each other to see who could be the most pro-life by saying such stupid things as "I will outlaw all abortions by executive order within one minute of being sworn in", and "I will only appoint judges who promise to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade", and "I will made abortion a capital offense", etc....
President Bush was being honest with the voters.
The Sin of Silence:A Defining Moment SEPTEMBER 2000
Our political leaders deal in trivialities and superficial nonsense, practicing the feel-good politics of deliberate ambiguity, while the destruction of our families, the perversion of our most basic moral principals, and the murder of innocent, unborn children goes on, and on, and on.
Those candidates in the presidential primaries who denounced the evil of abortion, and stood unequivocally for moral values, against the corruption of our times, never rose out of single digits in the polls.
And therefore, they were never considered serious contenders in this election cycle, and the moral issues for which they stood were pushed aside in favor of more practical considerations. We have come to this sorry state because Christian voters were more concerned about electability, than about integrity.
The result, to use the words of former President Gerald Ford is, "We have an election in which candidates without ideas, hire consultants without convictions, to carry out campaigns without content."
I. George W. Bush on Abortion
On the campaign trail, President Bush professed to be "pro-life," but with exceptions – he believes abortion to be justified in cases of rape and incest.1,2 The New York Times reported, "It was the same tempered language that George W. Bush typically uses to discuss abortion, which he opposes except in cases of rape, incest or risk to a pregnant woman's life."3 As Alan Keyes pointed out in the Presidential debates and in various speeches, such pro-life exceptions that allow the innocent to be killed in some circumstances disqualify President Bush from being pro-life at all.4 If President Bush would justify the killing of one innocent person under his jurisdiction, he is disqualified from being a good person, much less a good leader. Having a rapist for a dad is not a capital crime, and for President Bush to state that innocent children can justly be killed because of the tragic circumstances of their conception reveals that he doesn’t comprehend the basic principle of the inalienable, inviolable, God-given right to life acknowledged in our nation’s founding documents.
Also, on the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: "I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," President Bush professed.5 His wife reiterated her husband’s sentiments on a prime-time television interview on January 18, 2001. G. W. Bush has the power as the President of the United States to overturn this legal child-killing,6 but refuses to exercise this power, and so is responsible for all the child-killing he is allowing.
During the Presidential debates, President Bush was asked what he would say to a raped and pregnant family member. He said that he would tell her that the decision whether or not to kill the child was up to her. That is not pro-life. That’s classic pro-abortion rhetoric. If his daughter wanted to kill her grandmother to get the inheritance early, would he counsel her: "Sweetie, if you want to kill my mom, that’s completely up to you!?" Commenting on abortion on the campaign trail, President Bush stated, "good people can disagree on that issue."7 Oh really? This is manifestly absurd. Can good people disagree on whether or not innocent people should be murdered? I beg to differ: Good people cannot accept the murder of one single innocent human being.
Many conservatives have tried to overlook President Bush’s liberal tendencies in hopes that at the least G. W. Bush will appoint a pro-lifer to the Supreme Court, and in so doing, help overturn Roe v. Wade. Their hope is not only without evidence, it is plainly contrary to evidence. In his prime-time television debates with Gore, George Bush flatly denied that he had a pro-life litmus test for Court appointees.8 If a judicial candidate deemed it just and constitutional to execute innocent people, that did not exclude him from a possible appointment to the Supreme Court according to President Bush. President Bush has insisted that he will only appoint "strict constructionists" to the Court, or people who will interpret and apply the Constitution as the founders intended and not as an evolving, "living document," but according to President Bush they need not be pro-life ‘strict constructionists.’ His record as Governor of Texas shows that he does indeed appoint pro-abortion judges, so we should not be surprised if President Bush were to appoint pro-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.
Frequently displayed as evidence of President Bush’s pro-life views is his signing of legislation when he was Texas’ Governor that forbade underage girls from getting abortions without parental consent. The pro-life community roared their approval: a 13-year-old girl can’t get an aspirin without parental consent, why should she be allowed to undergo a surgical or chemical abortion without parental consent?! That’s sound pro-life legislation, right? George Bush must be pro-life, huh? Wrong! Did you realize that this piece of legislation was nullified by a Texas Supreme Court decision that ruled 6-3 that an unexceptional 17-year-old could get an abortion without telling her parents?9 The New York Times reported, "It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue…" You see, it was G.W. Bush who appointed four of the court’s nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O’Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. If this is what President Bush means by "strict constructionists," then any hope that he will appoint a pro-lifer to the Federal bench is baseless.
Also displayed as evidence that President Bush is pro-life was his reinstitution of Reagan’s Mexico City policy in the first days of his Presidency, which forbade taxpayer dollars from being given to organizations that perform abortions overseas.10 However, the pro-life façade soon came down. In a major policy shift, President Bush has decided to allow social service agencies in Africa and the Caribbean to receive funds from the U.S. treasury under his $15 billion emergency AIDS relief plan even if they promote family planning and provide abortions.11, 12 The New York Times confirmed, "Ignoring objections from his conservative base, President Bush is to make a Rose Garden speech on Tuesday in support of a $15 billion bill to fight A.I.D.S. internationally that will direct some money to groups that promote abortion," and that will do very little to actually prevent AIDS.13
Conservative groups also hold forth President Bush’s support of the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban" as evidence that he is indeed pro-life. Really? Does that make Tom Daschle pro-life, since he supports the Ban too? Don’t be so gullible, friend. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban won’t save a single life!14 Not one! Millions of rare pro-life dollars and countless hours of precious pro-life energy has been wasted over the course of a decade on a bill that won’t save a single life! The same babies that would perish through the "Dilation and Extraction Procedure" will die through arguably more painful "procedures" such as the "Dilation and Evacuation Procedure," where instead of being instantly killed with a stab to the head, the baby will be slowly ripped limb from limb. Furthermore, the very language of the ban encourages the killing of the baby before extraction. If an abortionist injects poison into the full-term baby’s heart, for instance, and then performs the "D & X Procedure," then the Ban would not apply.15 Thoughtful pro-lifers should oppose this counterfeit pro-life bill, this colossal waste of paper that perpetuates the Abortion Holocaust.
Thanks to G.W. Bush’s leadership, companies such as Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing conglomerate in the world, will get taxpayer funding. Planned Parenthood was responsible for the deaths of 227,385 Americans in 2002 alone. Planned Parenthood's 2002-2003 Annual Report shows that 33 % of its income came from federal government grants and contracts totaling $254.4 million in the fiscal year ending in June 2003, thanks to Medicaid disbursements and President Bush’s Title X of the Public Health Service Act in 2001. Under Bush, this baby-killing organization has received more tax-funds than under Clinton! Thanks in large part due to government handouts under President Bush, Planned Parenthood raked in a hefty $36.6 million profit in its last fiscal year.16
It is no exaggeration to say that President Bush kills babies. He uses his influence and power to perpetuate the Abortion Holocaust. Abortion abolitionists need to look beyond the Republican Party to find friends for the preborn. Those of us who supported George W. Bush and elected him to office may be responsible for the bloodshed that he perpetuated, either by way of our willful ignorance or our intentional refusal to judge righteous judgment, to judge President Bush by its fruit.
Ignorance? It was a statement of fact. The headline was flame-bait. And the guy plugged his website.
Sorry you find facts so inconvenient.
Yes, it is. It is a gross exaggeration, just as it is a gross exaggeration to say that gun makers are responsible for shooting deaths. You're worse than the zealots in the gun-grabber movement - because you poison the rhetoric in an otherwise highly worthy movement, and thereby alienate those who might otherwise gravitiate towards a pro-life position.
The slothful approach by "moderates" will get the Pro-Life movement nowhere!
In the 1960's MLK was told to wait and that Civil Rights and equality for Black Americans would take time because America would have to be educated and public opinion has to change. Well the Civil Rights movements said to hell with that we want change now. They were told to wait in the 1940's and they saw 2 decadeds later they were going nowhere. It is time to shake things up.
Innocent babies are being slaughtered and people here want to play politics with that. This is not a political issue but a national crisis. Remember this is a ten day nation. If Abortion were to be banned liberals would scream, but they always scream. As for the the majority of Americans they would forget about it and go on with their lives.
You know the saying among Gay Civil Rights leader "we're here we're qeer get used to it" well people are getting used to it. If abortion were banned Americans would not protest in the streets they have shown there disdain for that time and time again. People would just get used to it and move on. Just like they did in 1973 when abortion became legal everywhere and millions of babies started being killed in thisn nation.
We cannot wait no longer, if in then next four years President Bush does not take any strong action against abortion then he has already shown he is just like Clinton. A poll watching President who is too scared to act without his political advisors approval.
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.