Sarah Palin: her actual abortion record and rhetoric is shocking to the conscience.

Pro Life Profiles ^ | unknown

[GCC Catholic]

I’m against them if they kill babies.

That's not good enough.

Artificial contraception was the "deal with the devil" that eventually gave us legalized abortion. If you're really going to take a position of ideological purity based on Christian morality, you better take that into consideration too.

-----

But what do you say about the other part of that post?:

Holding to those strict ideals in the current political climate serves no purpose but to allow liberals to be elected, who will continue to destroy our rights and destroy our nation. Not only does this go against the purpose of protecting the rights of children in utero, but it also deprives us of our own rights and means to continue the fight for the universal right to life another day.

[EternalVigilance]

The main problem is not the open liberals. It’s the ones who pretend to be pro-life, while doing absolutely nothing to stop it.

Let’s use Texas as an example. In the last election, the people of the great state of Texas gave “pro-life” “Republicans” a veto-proof majority in the State House. That’s in addition to their ostensibly “pro-life” Governor. (Ha-ha.)

Did they use it to ban the practice of butchering babies, or to get the unconstitutional permission to kill innocent persons out of their code? No. They passed a sonogram bill. Show ‘em a picture, and then you can kill the baby.

One must ask, would they ban abortion if the people of Texas gave them 100% of the seats? Probably not.

[Mariner]

"The judicial supremacist fallacy that you and others are pushing here, and that Sarah Palin supports as well, is the death of representative republican self-government. There are no checks and balances in such a system. "

I don't push that and I call on you to publicly repudiate the accusation.

It was the ROE decision that exemplifies such thinking and the Roe decision is most likely to be overturned on 10th Amendment grounds, if ever.

Even assuming you had working majorities in both houses of Congress AND a POTUS willing to sign, until Roe is overturned a Federal Law precluding abortion would be held void.

It's ALSO just a likely you would have as many constitutional conservatives in opposition to such a law as you would liberals...as they highly value the 10th Amendment.

The law does not currently define the unborn as a person at the Federal level. If Congress and the POTUS were to pass such a law...it MIGHT hold since the Constitution does not address the matter at all.

I just don't believe they ever will.

[EternalVigilance]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference between powers and unalienable rights.

I'm sorry that you've bought into the lie that the courts reign supreme.

And I'm sorry that you think the Constitution doesn't "address the matter at all."

You might want to look up the meaning of the word "posterity."

And realize that abortion violates every clause of the Constitution's stated purposes.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[SaraJohnson]

I’m sorry. You are right. I was mistaken.

[EternalVigilance]

Thanks.

Natural Law - The Ultimate Source of Constitutional Law

[NoLibZone]

As Governor Ronald Reagan signed an abortion bill into law.

Was he pro abortion?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957926/posts