Posted on 10/30/2003 5:46:38 AM PST by Theodore R.
Bush and abortion
Posted: October 30, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush says the United States is not ready for a total abortion ban.
"I don't think the culture has changed to the extent that the American people or the Congress would totally ban abortions," he explained.
What Bush really means is the political culture in Washington hasn't changed.
Real leadership means doing what's right even at the risk of political rejection. That's not Bush. That's not the U.S. Congress. In fact, there's precious little real leadership like that anywhere in the United States today.
When Bush says the culture isn't ready to ban abortions, he's making excuses for himself.
The culture never was ready to eliminate all laws restricting abortion, but that didn't stop the Supreme Court from forcing that cultural and social change down the throats of an unwilling public.
Slowly but surely the culture has been pushed by the courts, by the media, by academia and by other cultural institutions to accept abortion on demand. Even so, 30 years after Roe v. Wade, the nation is basically still split evenly on the issue.
But morality is not subject to polls. Morality is not dictated by elections. Right and wrong are eternal, immutable truths.
That's why it is impossible that there ever was a constitutional right to an abortion in this country.
No matter what the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Roe v. Wade in 1973 or in subsequent rulings, abortion is illegal and unconstitutional, and I will prove it to you in this column.
To understand why, you must begin by doing something few Americans bother with anymore – reading the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
"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," it says.
Important words all. But I want you to focus right now on those to whom this document applies. Who are the subjects and beneficiaries of the Constitution, as stated clearly in the preamble?
The answer? "… to ourselves and our posterity. …"
The word "ourselves" in this context refers to those men who wrote it – and to their generation of Americans.
"Posterity," which literally means "descendants" or all succeeding generations, refers, in this context, to all those Americans yet unborn.
Is your great, great, great, great granddaughter your posterity? Absolutely. Is she born yet? Absolutely not. Does the fact that she is not yet born make her any less your posterity? No.
Now, specifically what rights are ascribed by the Constitution to ourselves and our posterity?
"Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Clearly, the Fifth Amendment establishes that our posterity – those yet unborn – shall not be deprived of life without due process. Bingo!
This same principle was contained in the Declaration of Independence:
"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."
Life is an unalienable right, which means man can't take it away through laws or through Supreme Court decisions. And just so there is no confusion about this being a limitation only on the federal government, check out the 14th Amendment:
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Tell me, where is due process for those unborn children sentenced to death while still in the womb?
Some abortion advocates have tried to suggest that Roe v. Wade – an arbitrary and capricious attempt by the Supreme Court to exceed its constitutional limitations and legislate – is itself the due process for unborn babies.
Once again, however, the Constitution trumps that poor excuse for an argument.
"Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."
Roe v. Wade is, thus, a sham – a house of cards. It was an artificial attempt to make abortion a right by citing a "right of privacy" that is itself nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade created rights where none existed and abrogated those that were enshrined as unalienable.
I rest my case.
But I will not rest entirely until this nation is awakened to abortion as both a national tragedy as well as a constitutional threat to all of our God-given rights – as well as an endangerment to the lives and liberties of our posterity.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 812 Jul 2, 1991
Perhaps it is not quite fair to hold President Bush to a much higher standard. I admire and respect both President Reagan and President Bush but perhaps they are not quite as different as some would have us believe.
RR wrote a book condemning abortion.
One merely has to read thru Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation to know where RR stood, exactly, on the issue of abortion.
Great quote! Thanks for posting that.
Yes, and now it seems it will take almost that long for the President to sign it.
Dear Mr. President,
Please stop procrastinating and sign the ban.
Respectfully,
A frustrated and tired Pro-life Christian
Why dont you do something if its so easy..
This is president Bush. Why would he say something like that, being the chief executive and commander? He must know that if the SC ruled the state laws unconstitutional by using the federal constitution, the any federal law banning abortion would have to be unconstitutional. If not, how not?
But he fights a good war, huh? 
Now you're making my point. That's why the Right (I won't say "conservatives" because that term is losing meaning) needs people such as myself who don't mind getting down and dirty with the Left.
You mention principles. Okay, then. Fine. But principles have no legs nor arms of their own. They sound good and puff up the chest with pride. Then what?
Worshipping principle is like a near-death starving man admiring a dinner plate. No matter how pretty it is, it won't do him any good unless he takes the action of eating it, correct? Even if he has no eating utensils and will look like a slob while eating!
If your enemy is shooting at you with an AR-15, yet you insist on firing back with a BB gun due to vaguely defined "principle," then you deserve what happens to you for being stupid.
That was a rhetorical "you," so you know.
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.