President Bush is Pro-Life in Name Only

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.

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.

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.

Some incredibly great points and questions.

"Why can a mere Supreme Court "decision" radically change our society to include a "right" to abortion?"

That is a great point to look at in context of the time Roe happened.

By 1910, every state except Kentucky had passed an anti-abortion law (and Kentucky's courts had declared abortion at any stage of gestation to be illegal).

By 1967, not much had changed. In 49 states, abortion was a felony ; in New Jersey, it was a high misdemeanor. Furthermore, 29 states banned abortion advertising, and many outlawed the manufacture or distribution of abortifacients.

In 1967, though, state abortion laws began to change, but only after years of organized campaigns by pro-abortion forces.

The US Constitution says absolutely NOTHING about abortion, but with the Amendments obligates the Government to protect innocent life.

The lie of overpopulation by the 60’s was “truth” throughout much of government and academia. In April, 1974, Henry Kissinger on behalf of President Nixon issued an executive directive, National Security Study Memorandum 200

A key line for all to grasp is:Abortion is vital to the solution for population control. This directive is still in effect today. Links & proof available for the skeptic is available.

There are many dynamics involved in the abortion holocaust: 1. Feminazi’s wanted abortion rights for “equality”

2. Some in government wanted abortion for “population control”

3. The Roe court was an admixture of both and the authors of the opinion knew 1. and 2., and knew that the US Congress could never pass a bill equaling anything near what they could do from the bench.

4. All of the above knew that in order to make abortion tolerable a major spin would be required. CHOICE was conceived and then born into the world on January 22, 1973.

5. Congress and the President were watching the Roe case closely from start to finish and COULD HAVE STOPPED IT IN IT’S TRACKS. If, Congress and the President were inclined to remove all appellate jurisdiction regarding abortion from the federal courts in 1972, Roe v Wade would never have been possible. Obviously they were not inclined to prevent Roe, and let the court create a monster of a "law".

6. No one could know that it would take so many lives but ALL THOSE INVOLVED DID KNOW that they were “legalizing” what was a FELONY across the nation in 1967.

Today science proves beyond a doubt that life begins at conception and is the taking of an innocent human life. And yet all three branches of OUR Government continue as if that is just an "opinion". It’s scientific FACT, ROE was the OPINION based on LIES, yet the government does not change.

And that is-was the cause of my article about Bush. I’m sorry if I was overly judgmental and heavy handed in the article. I like President Bush and think he is a genuinely good guy. But 4,000 babies are being tortuously murdered every day and I get very, very frustrated that he is not doing everything humanly possible to stop it. I deal with it daily and this time of year is particlularly stressful.

If we compare the war on Islamic terror versus the “regulation” of serial killing abortionists it is unacceptable and hence my title for the thread. I realize now though that it was unfair.

" 4 years from now a pro death candidate is elected, and the first thing s/he does when in office is to REVERSE what Bush did.

Did that really solve anything? "

Excellent question.

Obviously if something as evil as Dred or Roe could happen then-- with the decomposition of the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic that this Republic was founded on ANYTHING can happen in the future. And that is why in order to have a just government that does not trample it's citizens and it's principle Founding Documents, when one goes off the deep as with Roe it is incumbent upon the other two branches to check that Rogue branch. Obviously, there are NO guarantees, except DEATH and TAXES.

Please see footnote 2 in the article and this as well:

How Roe v Wade can END in 2005

A Life Amendment or Supreme Court opinion banning abortion is nowhere on the horizon. The good news is that neither is necessary.

Two laws, if passed, would have the desired effect of a Life Amendment—with only a simple (NOT SUPER) majority vote in both houses and presidential signature required for each. But first a Pro-Life constituency must become informed and then demand that our elected representatives vote for it. The following overview should be made known to the entire public. Moreover, this legislation would identify which politicians are truly Pro-Life and which politicians manipulate the Pro-Life movement for their own purposes.

The Constitution gives Congress authority to remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts [1], which Congress uses regularly. Congress used this authority 12 times in 2001 - 2002 to remove appellate jurisdiction from federal courts on several different matters [2]. In September 2004, the House passed a resolution amending the U.S. Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was then sent to the Senate. [3]

Along these same lines Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced the We The People Act, (H. R. 3893) [4], which prohibits The Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim based upon reproduction. If passed, the law would prohibit all federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court from breaking the law of any State restricting abortion, including restrictions that are more severe than those prior to the 1973 case of Roe v Wade.

It is far easier to remove the issue from a rogue judge than the judge from his bench. Congressman Paul explains this further in a recent article:

“The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.” [5]

Subsequent legislation could then be passed. With a simple majority vote in both houses and presidential signature, the U.S. Code could be amended to include unborn human beings as persons, thereby guaranteeing their protection under the Law. With the first piece of legislation in effect, no lawsuits from pro-abortion forces could be presented to the courts.

Ending abortion can actually be this easy, and perhaps that is why the Pro-Life movement is only presented with the near impossible prospects of a Life Amendment and a Pro-Life majority on the Supreme Court.

VALUES VOTERS must be educated about these facts and then must demand this approach NOW for it to be possible in 2005. Only We The People can make this happen.

More details are available at www.KnightsForLife.org and clicking on our new section Ending "Legal" Abortion.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html
[2] http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm
[3] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.03313:
[4] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893.IH:108th%20CONGRESS
[5] http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst100404.htm

"The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized."

Congressman Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst100404.htm

An interesting idea. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. However, I see the following scenario being played out:

After a long hard battle (probably extending through the 2006 elections) Bush and other Republicans get such legistlation passed.

Some pro death group or groups challenge such legistlation passed by Congress as "unconstitutional". Now, of course, the very nature of the new law isn't unconstitutional, as you showed. However, this doesn't matter in today's soundbyte, single issue world. It simply doesn't. IOW, we can't expect our country to suddenly revert to the principles of what it was SUPPOSED to be, overnight. If that were the case, then an astute, committed lawyer could simply challenge Roe v Wade on the basis that it takes away the States' Rights to govern themselves, which is also in the Constitution.

No, the fact that we are in the situation that we are in now should prove to anyone that strict constitional means to end abortion simply won't do. The challenge I spoke of at the beginning of the last paragraph will be there, and it WILL be heard by the courts. When I originally started writing my reply to you I had intended to say at this juncture that it would probably be overturned, but now I'm not even sure about that! After thinking about it even just writing this post! You and I both know that this country is HARDLY what the founding fathers envisioned. Why should we think that a strict interpretation of Constitutional Law will get us out of the baby killing mess we're in now? Besides, even if the challgenge were overturned (or dismissed) it'd take years, at least another 1 or 2, and by that time, we really can't hazzard a guess as to the make up of the Congress, or even the Presidency. By after all this time (at LEAST 3 years), the Congress and Presidency could all be Dem again, and then, as I said in my original post to you, there wouldn't really be any motivation anymore to "limit judicial opinion or authority".

Now contrast that, with the strategy the President (seems to) have now. Nominating 2 (possibly 3) justicies to the SC during his 4 years of presidency, thus ASSURING that any new anti-abortion law that's challenged by these baby killing groups WILL be supported. Slowly whittling away Roe V Wade until it becomes nothing but the paper on which it's written. In 4 years we could be in a position to completely stop virtually all abortions. Contrast that with your plan, where in 4 years we've spent countless man hours and money battling in courts for a law that ultimately could easily be REVERSED by the very same process you describe.

It seems pretty clear to me which is the most reasonable plan. And as far as ANY charge goes that Bush has done very little to stop the murder of babies, I would point you and everyone to Mr. Silverback's extensive list which Planned Parenthood compiled. I think if PP is worried about something, they more than anyone should know if it REALLY is a threat to the abortion industry.

Besides, to think that Congressman Paul, as esteemed and intellegent I'm sure he is, is any more intelligent and/or savvy than the President and his team of researchers/legal advisors, is, IMO, more a statement of faith from a loyalist, rather than an objective view of the facts.

Major problem with: "Nominating 2 (possibly 3) justicies to the SC during his 4 years of presidency...."

And that major problem's name is Miguel Estrada. Many people believe that Bush will nominate him to SCOTUS if/when the opportunity arrises and MOST in the Pro-Life movement believe he is far less than Pro-Life.

Hoping guessing how a justice will rule is not wise to bank on, and that makes We the People Act (HR 3893) that much more needed. It ACTIVLY corrects the courts while hoping new justices will rule pro-life has historiclly been VERY disappointing, as the greater majority of the Roe court were Republican appointments as is today's court.

And FWIW--I posted a list similar to Mr. Silverback's from another source and other articles praising the Bush administration on Pro-Life on more than one ocassion, so I am in no way against the man, I just want to challenge him to do more.

Our laws do not "allow" abortion - the Supreme Court did that in 1973. Our laws **limit** abortion on demand, at much cost to those of us who work in Austin to change Texas law and with the Crisis Pregnancy Centers to support women and girls who are pressured every day to abort their children. As the President has said, there is nothing that any of us can do to prevent any abortion, short of breaking Federal law.

You are against us, not one of us, in this post. You do nothing but harm to our cause by this post.

What else have you done?

You would have Christians vote Democratic, Green, Libertarian or Conservative Party?

Then you support John Kerry, Howard Dean, Planned Parenthood and Texas-NARAL as much as if you paid into their campaign chests.

Your comments are not based on the reality of the world. Unless you are in jail for infringement of the FACE laws and other anti-life and anti-civil rights laws passed in the name of protecting a "woman's right to choose," you have no right to condemn the incremental progress we have made in Texas over the last 10 years to protect our mothers and their children from abortion.

As you pointed out in several of your examples, every time we try to legislate the desire of the majority of Texans to limit abortions, some judge knocks us back. But, we have been making slow, incremental progress.

In Texas, the interference of judges had caused parental rights to deteriorate so far that there were no restrictions on abortions on minors. We are proud to point to a decrease in the rates of both teen pregnancy and abortion in Texas as a result of the Parental Notification law in our state. There are abuses of this legislation, and no accountibility on the part of the judges that grant exceptions, but the law was the best that we could get at the time. PP, NARAL and the Dems literally brought out the coat hangers when our legislature was debating this law in 1999.

All this in spite of the fact that the law is very liberal in its requirements for judicial bypass. In order to predictably protect the law from Federal judicial nullification, the law was necessarily broad, allowing virtually any girl who goes before a judge to qualify for an exception to the rule.

When the law was challenged in our State Supreme Court,the Justices had no choice but to follow the law as written by the Legislature. Otherwise, they would have been just as guilty of legislation from the bench as the abortion-friendly, anti-family judges.

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban has most certainly saved lives, even though judges have interfered in its actual enforcement by injunction. Minds have been changed. People have had to confront what abortion actually is.

We were able to prevent abortions for months in Texas, past 16 weeks gestation because we passed a law requiring these abortions to be done in ambulatory care centers. Some courageous contractors in Central Texas placed their livelihood on the line to boycott PP's building of dedicated centers for abortion in Austin.

Do not call me slothful.

First off I didnt call you slothful unless you are a RINO who feels abortion is a back burner issue.

Second off I realize we cant do EXACTLY what MLK did because of the different circumstances. When I say "shaking things up" I mean not allowing RINOS and Dems to slow us down and reverse progress. Pro-Lifers should make it clear they will never support any Pro-Choice candidate for any office where abortion could be deterred. They should let the GOP know they will not be taken for granted.

At the same time we should not allow Pro-baby killers chase us out of our parties. Right now the only viable Pro-Life Party is the GOP, but their was time when the Democrats where also Pro-life. Now that the Dems were cleansed of Pro-lifers, RINOS seek to do the same to the GOP. I say lets cleanse them before they cleanse us.

Yes I believe President Bush is personally against abortion, but the actions he has taken thus far have saved very few, if any lives.

1. You know this isn't true.

2. The bans he has signed would be saving plenty of lives if they hadn't been stopped in the courts. When they are declared Constitutional, they will save many lives. Moreover, just the changes he's made out of the country (like re-implementing Mexico City) have saved the lives of non-Americans.

3. I know we conservatives tend to be result-oriented, but consider this: What if somebody looked at your efforts thus far and said, "Well, you've saved few, if any, lives. You're pro-life in name only." Would you consider that to be a valid assessment?

With all due respect, you must be insane to believe this would work. He would be impeached, probably by a narrow margin, but impeached nonetheless. He would then be convicted quite handily by the Senate and removed from office. If Cheney let the order stand, they would impeach him. This would continue until they got somebody in there to rescind the order. And I won't even go into the vast number of federal, state and local officials and private citizens who would believe this was a violation of the Constitution and simply ignore it. Anarchy followed by impeachment, what a plan.

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.

Got any backup for that? Why don't abortionists just do this already? If they did, it would eliminate the need for breech birth, for example.

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.

As Colonel Henry Potter would say, "horse hockey!" First, you didn't post a column called "Our Congress and President are Pro-life in name Only." Second, Section 3 of the We The People Act is blatantly unconstitutional, foolish and dangerous! If the federal courts cannot rule on those matters, it might prevent them from tramping on my rights, but it would also keep prevent them from intervening to protect those rights from state and local authorities, and thereby gut the check and balance authority of an entire federal branch. Somehow, I'm thinking the Founders would like it if we kept all three branches.

Let me throw in a few examples:

Under this act, the courts wouldn't be able to impose Michael Newdow's will on us all. But they wouldn't be able to rule in favor of a kid who was expelled for wearing a Christian T-Shirt, either.

They wouldn't be able to make a city take a cross of its seal, but they wouldn't be able to protect the worker fired from his job for dispklaying a cross in his cubicle.

They wouldn't be able to rule in favor of a school that won't allow the Boy Scouts, but they also wouldn't be able to rule in favor of the Scout's right to practice their beliefs as the SCOTUS did a few years back.

They wouldn't be able to impose gay marriage on us, but they also wouldn't be able to stop a guy like Gavin Newsom, even if we passed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

In other words, the federal courts would be just as unable to defend Constitutional rights as they would be to damage them. If some tinhorn mayor or governor can tell me how to worship my God, why have a federal government in the first place?

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.