Roe v. Wade Overturned? - MUST READ - ACTION ALERT

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/ ^ | 17 January 2004 | http://www.reclaimamerica.org/

[Grut]

I don't see the part where he asks for contributions; is "send money" assumed?

[SAR]

You beat me to it on the Brown v. Board.

[Poohbah]

By one whole post.

Great minds obviously think alike.

[davidosborne]

I posted this for discussion of the issue, not for contributions to ANY organization

[Tom D.]

Check out this take on Roe v. Wade:

Click Here for Interesting Article on Point

[johnb838]

Or, in Freeper terms, it's a mute point.

[davidosborne]

There are MANY cases that come before lower courts and are ruled on based on the "precedent" of the wrongly decided Roe v Wade case. The only way to stop the cycle is by overturning the original case or by constitutional ammendment...

[johnb838]

I'd be more supportive of an amendment to protect innocent human life than I would a Marriage Amendment, though it would be the best if they could be somehow combined. But frankly civil marriage, which is largely a gussied up form of partnership contract, seems a little bit trivial compared to 43 million deaths at the hands of the abortion industry.

I can't believe I'm saying these things, I used to be for a woman's right to "choose" (choose what?). Now I think the law should be "If you get PG you don't have to raise it, but you do have to carry it."

Until we get sufficiently good technologically that we can surgically extract the foetus and give it to somebody who wants it. That would fix everything, wouldn't it?

[Poohbah]

There are MANY cases that come before lower courts and are ruled on based on the "precedent" of the wrongly decided Roe v Wade case. The only way to stop the cycle is by overturning the original case or by constitutional ammendment...

And that means that you keep appealing the case until the Supreme Court reverses its precedent.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[johnb838]

Well the restraining order on the PBA ban would be a good start.

[Coleus]

Congress can use article III section 2 of the US Constitution to limit the power of the SCOTUS. Yet the republicans choose to do not.

The 5th and 14th amendments guarantee us to a right to life.

The 9th amendment in which the case was decided does not entitle a woman to kill her baby based on privacy.

[Poohbah]

Well the restraining order on the PBA ban would be a good start.

Yup. But that takes time. It also takes W-O-R-K, which is something that a lot of folks on the edges of the conservative movement seem to be allergic to.

[davidosborne]

Thanks for bumping.. I look forward to following this case

[johnb838]

We have to take away their power. The SCOTUS and federal courts in general have gone way too far to depend on the whimsical personalities of sitting judges to be the solution. Too many of them have appeared conservative until they got in there and started writing new law like the rest of the old buzzards.

No, we need to start taking away their power. By abolishing the courts they sit on, or by exempting legislation from the judicial review, which is permitted under the constitution. Or maybe an amendment affirming that the constitution says what it means and means what it says, but that's kind of redundant.

[johnb838]

Work? Uh... see ya, gotta go...

[Poohbah]

(c8

[grassboots.org]

Until we get sufficiently good technologically that we can surgically extract the foetus and give it to somebody who wants it. That would fix everything, wouldn't it?

[grassboots.org]

Until we get sufficiently good technologically that we can surgically extract the foetus and give it to somebody who wants it. That would fix everything, wouldn't it?

No, this assumes that there aren't plenty of women who would rather kill their babies than let another woman raise it (Do you remember the prostitutes who brought the one living baby before Solomon?)

Abortion is not just an act of desperation, it is mostly an act of violence.