[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"Bush will protect life to the limits that he has. He cannot and did not advocate overturning Roe."

Under Roe, the unborn can be afforded no protection in law at all. Thus, if President Bush meant to protect the unborn in law, but with Roe in effect, his words would be meaningless, even contradictory, and he would be a liar.

But, I don't believe that President Bush is a liar.

He has clearly signaled that he believes Roe was not the work of "strict constructionists," and has said that he favors "strict constructionists" for the court.

"Roe protections exist because of public demands for it."

No, that is counter-factual.

Roe exists because seven jackasses on the Supreme Court, in 1973, demanded it.

At the time, abortion was illegal in the vast majority of states, and the pro-abortion legislative movement had already pretty much peaked. Thus, in terms of actual political processes using democratic means through state legislatures, a substantial minority of folks had managed to significantly loosen laws regarding abortion in a minority of states, even getting nearly to abortion on demand in a few states.

And they'd lost their momentum to take it further. Thus their turn to the courts.

Even today, Cold Heat, if Roe were overturned, abortion would be mostly illegal throughout pregnancy in most of the states, as pre-Roe laws would again have effect, and post-Roe laws written to take effect once Roe was overturned, would take effect for the first time.

And in 40 states, late-term abortions would be significantly restricted.

As for changing social mores, it is important to change the law to reinforce those changes. The law, whether we like it or not, is a teacher. I can't add up all the people who have told me abortion should be legal because... it's legal. Ack!

I can't add up all the people that have told me, well, if it were illegal, then it should be illegal. I don't know what to make of that sort of reasoning, but there it is.

Changing the law will help to change hearts and minds.

As well, it is required of a just society to protect the lives of innocents in law.


sitetest

[narses]

McCAIN [to Bush]: Do you believe in the exemption, in the case of abortion, for rape, incest, and life of the mother? BUSH: Yeah, I do. McCain: [But you] support the pro-life plank [in the Republican Party platform]? BUSH: I do. McCAIN: So, in other words, your position is that you believe there’s an exemption for rape, incest and the life of the mother, but you want the platform that you’re supposed to be leading to have no exemption. Help me out there, will you? BUSH: I will. The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined. McCAIN: If you read the platform, it has no exceptions. BUSH: John, I think we need to keep the platform the way it is. This is a pro-life party. McCAIN: Then you are contradicting your platform.

Source: GOP Debate on the Larry King Show Feb 15, 2000

[Cold Heat]

The law, whether we like it or not, is a teacher.

With this one single statement, you have exposed your true feelings.

You want judges who legislate from the bench to "teach".

Therefore, you are essentially saying the same things the liberals offer, but on the other side of the issue.

Both are just as incorrect and dangerous to the republic.

Both are massaging the constitution to affect social changes.