California Congressman Picks Up Pro-Life Mantle (Duncan Hunter for President Alert)

The Bulletin ^ | 01/25/2007 | Joe Murray

[GulfBreeze]

This past Monday, thousands of pro-life activists converged on Washington, D.C. These activists came from far and wide, from the West Coast to the East Coast, to participate in the March for Life and to petition their elected officials to stop the holocaust they believe is taking place in the scores of abortion clinics scattered throughout the nation.

And while these activists withstood bitter weather, and the occasional snow shower, to make sure their message echoed throughout the halls of Congress, one California Congressman heard their pleas.

Duncan Hunter, Congressman for California's 52nd District and possible Republican presidential candidate, re-introduced his "Right to Life Act" on Monday, the 34th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. In essence, the Right to Life Act, which had 101 co-sponsors (the largest ever) in the 109th Congress, serves as a Congressional declaration that life begins at the moment of conception and, therefore, the unborn are entitled to the constitutional protections entitled to all individuals. In a statement made on the floor of the House, Duncan explained "one of most fascinating... shows on television today, 'In the Womb' on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly-detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero." Such footage depicts the unborn child sucking a thumb, smiling, crying and responding to certain movements made by the mother. Under the constitutional framework established by Roe, this same child can be terminated with the legal blessing of the highest court in the nation.

Such images of the unborn has led Hunter, and the many pro-life activists that have lobbied for personhood for the unborn over the past three decades, "to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child."

When Justice Harry Blackmun issued the Roe majority opinion in 1973, many of the technological advances that are routine today were unavailable. The medical uncertainty surrounding the beginnings of life led the High Court to create a sliding scale that determined abortion rights based on viability. In other words, the closer the woman was to the moment of conception, the greater her right to abortion on demand. The closer the woman was to the child's delivery, the greater the interest of the state to protect the child. And it was the Justices on the court that weighed the scale. Even more disturbing was the fact that Blackmun declared the right to an abortion while readily admitting the court was clueless as to when life begins. Thus, many pro-life activists decry the decision as yielding state-sanctioned executions of innocents and have spent the last thirty years trying to undo the damage inflicted by the decision.

Traditionally, there are only three ways that Supreme Court precedent can be overturned-by the Court's decision to reverse itself, the President's refusal to enforce the decision or by Constitutional amendment. All methods, however, are rare and/or cumbersome. The California congressman, though, argues that Blackmun's uncertainty surrounding life's beginnings provides Congress a fourth option in reversing Roe; one that does not require Congress to jump through the hurdles presented by the Amendment process or be dependent on the Court or the President.

"In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ... refused to determine when life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment," stated Hunter. Hunter points out that "in the decision...the Court did concede that, 'if the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.'" It is here that Hunter sees the way out of Roe.

According to the text of the Right to Life Act, the Act seeks "To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." Further, the Act holds "The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."

"Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the 14th Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that [Congress] has the authority to determine when life begins," argued Hunter.

Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, a pro-family public interest law firm based in Tupelo, Mississippi, agrees that the Right to Life Act would pass constitutional muster. Furthermore, Crampton asserts that such an act is necessary for the federal courts have adopted the view that a fetus is not a person.

"In the cases subsequent to Roe, many constitutional scholars have commented on the fact that not one member of the Court has disagreed with the conclusion of the pro-abortion lobby that denies personhood to the unborn." Crampton further adds, "In terms of arguing personhood to the bench, such a legal position has been rejected and is dead on arrival."

To support his claim, Crampton points to the concurring opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986). In that case, which struck down portions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, Justice Stevens wrote that even those Justices who frequently dissent on Roe-related cases have not embraced the "religious view" that a fetus is a person. Thus, Crampton believes that the pro-life movement "will not get anywhere in court by arguing a fetus is a person."

It is for that very reason Crampton feels that the Right to Life Act is necessary to protect the unborn. The Act finds it legal support on four constitutional provisions that enable Congress to flex its political muscle. Hunter argues that the first section of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life and the fifth section provides Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment."

Hunter also contends that the Act is supported by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from denying a person life. Finally Hunter argues that the Act is in accordance with Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution, which bestows to Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper.

If the Act passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president, the result would be that unborn children, from the moment of conception, would be afforded the same constitutional rights and protections as individuals that are born. Thus, the precedent established by Roe would be effectively overturned, for the law would recognize the unborn as human beings. Even more importantly, the Act would overturn Roe without having to return the issue to the states. "Once this law is enacted and becomes federal law," states Crampton, "the unborn are bestowed the rights of personhood and any state permitting abortion on demand would no longer be able to infringe on the constitutional rights of the unborn child." Hence, no state could have a law that permits abortion.

Not all members of Congress are supportive of the act. Joe Sestak, Democratic Congressman for the 7th District of Pennsylvania, responded to Hunter's bill by stating "In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to choose abortion with its landmark decision Roe v. Wade. Over the past 34 years since Roe v. Wade, the Court has repeatedly upheld Roe's core principles. Regardless of my religious beliefs, I support that decision that the United States should offer every woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion, if that is her personal choice."

Chaka Fattah, Democratic Congressman for the 2nd District of Pennsylvania was also contacted, but was still reviewing the bill and did not comment at this time.

To Hunter, though, the Act is not about choice, but putting "our unborn children on the same legal standing as all other persons."

[Liz]

Hunter CAN pull the party together---and more---much more. Hunter's recent call for pardonning border agents (read below) was a masterful stroke. Hunter knows that anti-amnesty is a rare consensus issue---he will get support from many on the entire political spectrum. Read on:

Bush Considering Pardon for Border Agents Convicted of Shooting Mexican Drug Runner
Fox News | 1/19/2007
FR Posted on 01/19/2007 by Antoninus

WASHINGTON — President Bush promised to review a case for a possible pardon of two former U.S. Border Patrol agents serving time in prison for shooting a Mexican drug runner. Bush said in an interview with KFOX-TV in El Paso, Texas, Thursday that he would "take a sober look at the case" as it works its way through the appeals system.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced a bill on Thursday to pardon the agents, joining a growing group of supporters of the men, including Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., and Ted Poe, R-Texas. Hunter collected 76 co-sponsors on a House bill he introduced that would pardon the agents. The bill is the first of its kind in Congress, said Hunter spokesman Joe Kasper. The legislation is likely to head to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.

"We cannot turn our back on agents Compean and Ramos or the rest of the men and women proudly serving in the U.S. Border Patrol. These two agents deserve our full support and the congressional pardon provided by this legislation," Hunter said in a statement.

Hunter also sent a letter to the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons requesting the two former agents be segregated from the general prison population — some of which the ex-agents may have helped put away.

[freedomfiter2]

They invade every single Rudy or Romney thread and efface it with personal attacks, crazy pictures, lies from LEFTY newspapers and magazines and then claim that the LIBERAL MSM are supporting these men.


Nice to see you on this Hunter thread.

[narses]

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights, Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999 http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Rudy_Giuliani_Abortion.htm

ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES (November 14, 2006)

RUDY GIULIANI (R), FORMER MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY: I'm pro- choice. I'm pro-gay rights.

KING: Giuliani supports a woman's right to an abortion, and back in 1999, he opposed a federal ban on late-term abortions.

GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing.

KING: Immigration could be another presidential landmine. Back in 1996, Mayor Giuliani went to federal court to challenge new federal laws requiring the city to inform the federal government about illegal immigrants.

JEFFREY: He took the side of illegal immigrants in New York City against the Republican Congress.

KING: Giuliani opposes same-sex marriage but as mayor, he supported civil unions and extending health and other benefits to gay couples. He also supported the assault weapons ban and other gun control measures opposed by the National Rifle Association.

GIULIANI: I'm in favor of gun control. I'm pro-choice.

Republican Big-Wigs Support Pro-Abortion Event in NY

Pro-abortion Governor George Pataki and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who also supports unrestricted abortion, are co-chairs of the 2000 Choice Award Presentation to be held on May 30 at the St. Regis Hotel in New York City. The event is sponsored by the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, a group that is campaigning for the removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform.


http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200503010743.asp

[Liz]

Presidential-sounding quote from Hunter (responding to assertions that the Republican presidential nominee needs to raise $100 million):

Hunter said he wouldn't need to raise that kind of money because “most of that money goes to pay for consultants that help them look like they are conservative, and I am conservative already."

Duncan Hunter----was a conservative---is a conservative---will always be a conservative.

[Liz]

When Julie-annie was clawing his way up the political ladder, he willfully pandered to gun controllers, abortionists and gayders.

As an elected Republican, he endorsed ultra-liberal Democrats including Bill Clinton.

Rudy threw himself into the anti-family Planned Parenthood lifestyle and callously dumped wives for girlfriends---Rudy even tried to throw his wife AND HIS CHILDREN out of the Mayoral mansion, so he could move his mistress is.

Rudy willingly (perhaps gleefully) stomped on family values, he thumbed his nose at social conservatives, and he supported abortion on demand and gay rights (even though he had no legislative or official mandate to do so).

Now Rudy Rooters keep whining that he's being trashed.

Any trashing he's getting now, Rudy himself invited.

It's too bad Rudy didn't heed the following admonition: "Be careful who you step on, on the way up, because you are going to meet them on the way down."

[TheeOhioInfidel]

"His stance on trade ( at least the stuff I've seen posted to FR ), is terrible for America and Americans."

Explain how protecting American manufacturing is terrible for Americans. And just because someone wants to impose limits on commerce regulated by the WTO and its' manifold beuracracies, that does not make him an extreme protectionist. Free trade presupposes a free playing field, which is hardly the case in today's world. And How would you deal economically with the Chinese who are playing us off as suckers vis-avis Iran?

[TheeOhioInfidel]

All your posts are very clever but they lack substance. Who do you see as the most viable Conservative candidate in '08? - one who will preserve conservative principles, since we are a movement based on free market, moral, and constitutional principles. Who do you see as the best candidate to protect our borders, or do you support the Senate amnesty plan? Which candidate will take it hardcore to the Jihadists and any other enemies? You've gone cynical on Hunter before the race has even heated up. Who do you support then?

[Plutarch]

You don't mention Hunter's record on spending.

Care to fill us in?

[SoCalPol]

Hunter's background is national and world affairs.
He has more experience than a 1 term gov. of a small st.

It makes no difference to some about his background , some would rather vote for an inexperienced person when it comes to the military, etc.

What I have seen on many threads with the simple minded, bigoted, and spaming cartoons with mis naming the candidate
is only driving away voters if others are nominated.
I have a 2nd and 3rd choice if mine isn't. I am a Republican and always vote republican but the list is narrowing due to the people who can only say, why, why, when answers are given. There are links and information.
They don't want answers just enjoy being snarky.

What I have seen is some folks candidates haven't much of a background so bashing others is the route.
I have been giving information on mine but some just beg to go the mud route. I will leave that to the ones with the candidates that can't be put forward.

[narses]

You got it!

[brothers4thID]

Forgive the slow responses, I was busy feeding the kids.

In response to those questioning his managerial or "big government" experience, I have to wonder if you all have ever dealt with DoD appropriations requests? Hunter was the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee during war time and during a big military build up. The DoD is a HUGE bureaucracy in and of itself. Furthermore, how is being one of 435 for 26+ years less of a qualifier than being 1 of 100 for 6 years? A House Committee is no small potatoes fiefdom, especially an "A list" committee liked Armed Services.

While Hunter does not have the national name recognition of Hillary or McCain he is not an unknown for those familiar with the defense industry, military concerns, Southern California or the Republican House leadership. Those groups will provide a good networking and fundraising base. And after 26+ years I think the Congressman has a fair idea of how to go about fundraising. ;)

Someone, and I forget who, I'm sorry for that, said Hunter made anti-WOT comments on CNN recently. I missed that, can you please provide a link to transcripts or replays?

Dave: you responded to several of my points saying that you or your relatives had similar qualities as those I listed and wanted to know why Hunter was necessarily a better candidate than you.

Well, first, because he HAS been elected, several times, previously. Because he knows the national game, even if the national media and the populace as a whole don't know him. Because having a stable marriage with kids tends to quash any conservative scruples about morals. Because having a son who served two tours in Iraq will be an effective rebuttal to the Cindy Sheehan rant of "it's not your kid dying over there".

I'm probably missing some of your rebuttals. I'll have to go re-read and post when I have a chance.

[jmc813]

They will want to use the money for aid stations to provide water and shade for the undocumented workers.

Undocumented workers? What other liberal soundbites do you typically use?

[Kevin J waldroup]

http://clips.mediamatters.org/static/video/cnn-20070125-hunter.wmv

[GulfBreeze]

Thank you both for your reasoned and powerful posts (89 & 91 in turn). You were each firm, persuasive and entreative.

This is the tone needed both in the ranks of Hunter supporters and in across the GOP.

Thank You

[nopardons]

I've only seen him on T.V., which is why I asked you of you had seen him in person. Is he the same or different in person?

[nopardons]

Did you see him with Blitzer, today?

[nopardons]

I suggest that you learn some simple financial/business history.

If you demand government run businesses, that's socialism; not Conservatism.

[nopardons]

Unlike you and many of the Hunterites, I am not only being civil, I am neither personally attacking the Hunterites, nor have I called anyone a name. That's a HUGE difference, between what I have posted to this thread and what the Hunteriets do on Romney and Rudy threads!

[nopardons]

He may be a conservative; however, if he thinks that he doesn't need a LOT of money to win the primary, he is very much mistaken!

[nopardons]

You are putting Goebbels to shame!

Rudy NEVER tried to throw his children out of Gracie Mansion, nor did he ever attempt to move his girl friend into it. He and Donna were going through a divorce and Donna threw HIM out of Gracie Mansion, which is the designated residence of the MAYOR of N.Y.C.; which she was never elected to be.

He and his first wife got a divorce AND an annulment from the Catholic church, due to consanguinity.

You have NO leg to stand on; you are a serial TRASHER and not even a credible one.