PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe."

You may believe that, but the Supreme Court doesn't.

Actually, the health thingy is technically a part of Doe v. Bolton. But these are companion cases, issued on the same day, one to establish the principle, the other to provide significant guidance as to how to interpret the principle.

Doe v. Bolton holds that "health" means just about anything, including relieving anxiety from missing the prom.

And the Supreme Court has held to this.

If you wanna tighten up the "health" clause, you're going to have to overturn the entire contraption of Roe and Doe.

Sorry.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though."

Plenty of challenges have already made their way to the Supreme Court.

Some very minor forms of regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, and informed consent come to mind) have been permitted.

No real restriction of abortion has been permitted.

Including Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Ruled not allowable under Roe.

But, wait, northward of 70% of folks want a ban on partial birth abortion! How can that be?? Huge majorities of folks want something not permitted under Roe!! How is that possible??

LOL.

As for activist judges, if we wanted activist judges, we'd want folks who would go beyond overturning Roe to enunciating that abortion itself is a constitutional violation, and must be banned forthwith.

But that is not what we seek. We seek that judges will read themselves OUT of the debate, and turn the matter back over to the political process, the legislative process.

Why do you fear that result? Afraid that people might support more restrictions than you'd like?


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.

I don't believe they would. I believe they would fix it, if given the opportunity.

Their counterparts would not have anything to do with that idea however.

You really can't say that they would overturn it.

The court cannot simply overturn what it views as bad or unworkable law. it must have a case that it can use to clarify, extend or modify the existing laws.

The idea of overturning Roe is just a pipe dream.

[Cold Heat]

And the Supreme Court has held to this.

The old court did.

We don't know what the new one will look like, and that is basically what we are discussing here and now.

[cgk]

Posts # 156, 243, 251, 260, 298, 400, 415, and 450 (and this is BY NO MEANS comprehensive) offer a cornucopia of quotes which further prove the extremism involved here.

I would like to point out there are MANY posts that are "extreme" on both sides of the aisle here. I haven't seen any pro-life FReepers calling for the murder of abortionists, as they have been accused of doing, but it is being said. Is that less of an offense in your eyes?

BTW... it is considered bad tact to criticize your FRiends without pinging them to your criticism.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"'Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.'

"I don't believe they would. I believe they would fix it, if given the opportunity."

What you believe is irrelevant. Writing in dissenting opinions, both have written that Roe is bad constitutional law, and ought to be thrown out.

"The court cannot simply overturn what it views as bad or unworkable law. it must have a case that it can use to clarify, extend or modify the existing laws."

Wrong again. When a case comes to the Supreme Court where ruling one way or other would have the effect of overturning a previous decision, the court usually does not.

But the court may, indeed, overturn a previous decision. The court may, indeed, overturn the precedents provided by previous rulings from previous Supreme Courts.

Look up Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned a previous Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson.

In Plessy, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was permitted in laws that segregated the races. In Brown, Plessy was overturned, and segregation was ruled unconstitutional.

The court may overturn Roe, and considered it when deciding Casey.

Try again.


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Why do you fear that result? Afraid that people might support more restrictions than you'd like?

I fear judicial activists of any color, stripe or political party affiliation.

They have no business on the bench.

PERIOD!!!!!!!END OF STATEMENT!

[streetpreacher]

"I affirmed the wisdom of Clinton's statement regarding abortion in the run up to the election in his first term.

He won that election!"

Yes, he did with that gigantic 43% mandate! Nice. A FReeper appeals to Clinton. Abortion does indeed make for strange bedfellows.

[JeffAtlanta]

In the meanwhile, in various polls, large majorities have answered that they would endorse specific restrictions on abortions that would be impermissible under Roe.

Organ stealing has always been a crime - abortion is legal. You're being disingenuous by trying to pick out irrelevant exceptions.

Again, if these large majorities really exist why not propose a specific amendment to overturn Roe V Wade? The amendment doesn't have to ban all abortions - it can just be specifically targeted at Roe V Wade. Why go through all of this work, uncertainty and disappointment if you indeed do have these large majorities?

[JeffAtlanta]

I can add them together if both groups hold for results that violate Roe, and I am merely trying to make the point that Roe must be overturned.

But you know that if the question was phrased "Do you want Roe V Wade overturned" the support would be no where close to 60%.

[streetpreacher]

"Opinions are like

---

, everyone has one."

Wow, you floored me with that gleeming piece of knowledge.

[Cold Heat]

both have written that Roe is bad constitutional law, and ought to be thrown out.

Both have been critical of the law, but both are now bound by it. Scalia has made comments in the past, but I have heard little or nothing from Thomas.

He made his stance quite clear however, that their is no right to choose in the constitution.

But, they cannot vacate the law. They must follow it's intent unless of course, they decide to become activists.

Or better yet, they receive a case that will allow them to mitigate some of the more onerous provisions of Roe.

I think the latter is the more likely course of action.

[King Prout]

I can add nothing to your post.
*ovation*

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"'And the Supreme Court has held to this.'

"The old court did.

"We don't know what the new one will look like, and that is basically what we are discussing here and now."

Cold Heat, have you been paying attention?

Roe v. Wade was promulgated by the fat black-robed asses in 1973.

We have had 31 years of Roe jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court, over that time, permitted not a single real restriction to abortion on demand, up to and including four-fifths infanticide at term.

That is the structure of Roe. Read what these folks write. They rule as they do because any other ruling undermines fatally Roe itself. That is what they say. That is why they overturned Nebraska's PBA ban.

Justice O'Connor has written repeatedly, if a law has the effect of constructively denying a woman an abortion - any abortion, for any reason, at any time, the law does not pass muster with Roe.

Your previous comments lead me to believe that you aren't really very aware of what's happened on this issue. Your belief that Justices Thomas and Scalia would not vote to overturn Roe actually are in contradiction with what's in the public record.

The decision of Roe v. Wade, despite what liberals and libertines think, is not Holy Writ. It's just a really clunky, really badly-argued and reasoned decision of the Supreme Court. It has no more eternal value than Dred Scott of Plessy vs. Ferguson.

The left holds to it because without it, they know that folks will accept, nay, demand significant restrictions on abortions. In many states, abortion will only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Some states will continue with a wide abortion license, although I wouldn't be surprised to see nearly all states significantly curtail access to late-term abortions.

Bottom line, the only thing preventing the American people from restricting abortion significantly in the United States is Roe.

Roe's gotta go.


sitetest

[tpaine]

sitetest wrote:

Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.

Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.

[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.

Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?

You need to read what I wrote before responding to it. States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.

Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?

What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion." I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."

That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.

What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."

Gee, who would have guessed..

In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny. sitetest.

Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.

[Cold Heat]

Stuff it Street!

I have had enough hyperbole for one day.

Cries of dead babies and bloody forearms combined with Clinton lover is a bit much.

[Henchman]

Don't worry sitetest, skywalk wouldn't recognize a dictatorship if he / she saw it. Murder is murder weather it is in a "Democracy" or Dictatorship or underground abortion mills. Location or type of government doesn't justify taking the baby's life.

As far as the "coat hangar" back room abortion mills where the woman's life is at risk - possible, but one should be willing to face the penalty when taking a life and not ask others to condone that action. Education, adoption etc are all options. Only fools talk about back room abortion mills as the only option.

Either way, abortion has been cited as one of the highest risk procedures as it relates to breast cancer. The people who raise the "back room coat hanger" scenario are going to have to deal with that fact. If they are so concerned, where is their empathy for those who have or will contract breast cancer because of their permissiveness? No problem for them, just hang onto the "L"iberal ideas at any cost. BTW, isn't skywalk's position contrary to the stated use of Jim Robinson's Web Site? The rules are on the front page.

[JeffAtlanta]

You equate Social Security, Medicare and the Income tax with abortion? How can you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously by Christian conservatives on this thread?

Because all of those are political issues - like it or not its the reality. The only people that can do anything about abortion are either elected officials or those appointed and confirmed by elected officials. The reality of this makes abortion a political issue.

Many conservatives don't want to the republican part to commit political suicide just for abortion. The reality is that the republicans won't be able to do anything about it anyway and the firestorm will take them out of power for generations.

With the conservatives out of power, we will not only continue to have abortions, but we will also lose personal freedoms, endure income redistribution and loss of American sovereignty.

Preach on and start your own party if you want. An amendment is your only hope - don't force the republican party to fall on their sword to make you feel better. Do your own work and get an ammendment passed. If its truly the will of the American people, it shouldn't be a problem.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

Overturning Roe isn't judicial activism. It's judicial INactivism, in that it INactivates the court from such intimate involvement in this question.

Judicial decisions that have the effect of permitting legislatures and voters to decide issues, that abjure jurisdiction over questions, are the opposite of judicial activism. Do you understand that rather basic premise?

Overturning Roe returns the question to the political process, and would be an example of courts taking themselves OUT of the realm of activism.


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Roe's gotta go.

No, Connor has to go!

Dumping Roe is a unrealistic goal at this time. I stand firmly behind my assertions.

It is not gonna happen.