Posted on 11/25/2004 10:01:13 AM PST by nickcarraway
I see it as a two-fer. I don't approve of killing kids and I don't approve of Judges who try legislate from the bench.
It is an admission on their part that once Roe v. Wade is gone that there is enough public sentiment against abortion that laws will be passed at the State level making it illegal at least in some states.
As technology advances more and more people are coming to reject the abortion argument that it is not a baby. You see a blob on the screen it is one thing, you see a little face, that is quite something else. The child can no longer be de-humanized. Once that happens you can no longer say that killing them is not murder.
For me, it's definitely a one-fer. For one thing, overturning Roe won't make abortion illegal. It will allow some states to make it illegal, and will allow for common sense laws like parental notification, but you'll still have legal abortions and pills. So it's not pro-life. It's simply correcting a bad decision.
As I understand it, the US Constitution guarantees the right to life.
Therefore, abortion is clearly unconstitutional. Enough said. Bring these new Justices on!
It ought to be overturned because it authorizes killing babies. Period.
Why should this be so hard?
That to me is pro-life.
Small steps.
Thanksgiving day prayers for life!
Not in so many words. That is part of the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. However it does state that no one may be deprived of life or property without due process.
If we acknowledge that children in the womb have the same rights as children out of the womb then before the child can be killed there must be due process. The child must be accused of a crime, there must be a trial and the child must have legal representation. The jury of his peers is going to be a bit tricky also to even stand trial a person must be able to assist in his own defense. Even if you manage that I have yet to hear of a single case where a pre-born child comitted a capital crime so that should pretty much end it.
Apparantly not to the Founders who wrote and ratified the document. They had their own state laws on the subject. Scalia points that out in demonstrating the absurdity of a constitutional protection of abortion, when the plain facts show the federals are not supposed to be involved in this matter at all. You may still believe that the unborn ought to enjoy Constitutional protection, just know that that would respresent a departure from the actual meaning and force of the document.
As long as they have the first part, the second part is irrelevant.
The overturning of Roe merely returns the regulation of baby killing to the states. I presume Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, California and several other states will continue the practice post-Roe. In fact, the overturning of Roe will show that much of the democrat scare mongering is nothing more than hype. Most women will still have access to abortions post-Roe.
To me, baby killing is just one more policy question. The issue is how policy questions get resolved. Judicial fiat of any kind is wrong and must be stopped. Congress, a beast in its own right, is more easily contained than unaccountable judges. I want the people to take back the process of government. Then we will be in a position to address all the important issues.
Point it out to me. I don't recall. In fact, the Constitution infers the right to deprive life in the 5th amendment. At that time, states had their own laws on abortion and the national government had nothing to do with it.
In theory...
Remember "David Souter."
I don't get your point. Souter is not a strict constructionist.
I'm most impressed with Janice Rogers Brown, based on this article. I like where she says "When fundamentally moral and philosophical issues are involved and the questions are fairly debatable," Brown wrote, "the judgment call belongs to the Legislature. They represent the will of the people."
I think the Court could legitimately go beyond just overturning Roe v. Wade and move to outlaw abortion, being that the right to life is the most clear constitutional principle. No one has a right to deny the right to life to another without due process of law, even the states.
I wouldn't expect that to happen though. For one thing, NOW would suicide-bomb the Judges' chambers.
George H. Bush & Co. were a bit sloppy with their "research," and discovered that fact much too late.
That's true. He was truly a disaster. I don't think GWB's team will make that mistake. GWB has promised Scalias. I'm hoping he delivers precisely that. Janice Rogers Brown seems to fit the bill. I'll have to read more on her.
As I understand it, many states passed laws that restrict or outlaw abortion and they will have the force of law should Roe be overturned.
So, yes, that is a pro-life move on the part of the Court.
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.