Posted on 01/25/2007 1:30:04 PM PST by 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."
"Is he willing to run as an Independent if the Republican Party decides to nominate someone more moderate?"
WILLING?? Are you kidding me?? You WANT him to run as a 3rd party candidate if he doesn't get the GOP nomination? Okay, let me translate..you WANT Hillary to be president in 2008. Wow.
Sorry, I don't do links!
He's a LOCAL politician and if he REALLY knew what it took, he wouldn't have fluffed off his need to raise BIG BUCKS for the primary run. That is very telling.
Thanks for this. Did my bit and will do some more later with the links you provided.
I'm behind this guy 100%. I was hoping a TRUE conservative would emerge from the pack of rinos we currently have. What I've seen so far of this guy, I LIKE, I LIIIIKE.
Wow. I don't know where to begin. But I will say that "protecting American manufacturing" is completely ridiculous. The market replaces those jobs, hence our unemployment rates going down. The government is doing the economy a disservice when it steps in and tries to force the market remain stagnant. Preventing companies from outsourcing is bad for all of us because it keeps the companies from being able to get cheaper labor which keeps them from selling the goods at a cheaper price, creating more jobs and services, putting more money into producing the goods in a more effective way, etc. But I understand that such a basic understanding of economics is lost on some many on the right and many more on FR...
Thanks for the ping!
DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER -
DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER -
DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER - DUNCAN HUNTER
Cindy is right. "Abortion to save the mother's life" is a straw-man used by people who would keep abortion legal for more nefarious reasons. Even in the case of the ectopic pregnancy the baby, although doomed with present technology, can be removed surgically in a non-violent way with a view toward preserving life.
That's a HUGE difference, between what I have posted to this thread and what the Hunteriets do on Romney and Rudy threads!
Maybe you have a point there. The best way to handle name callers is to just ignore them. I'm sure most of us have better things to do than wading through a lot of juvenile banter.
Thanks for all the info. Getting the web rootsystem in place early is critical.
But I understand that such a basic understanding of economics is lost on some many on the right and many more on FR...
It's not all about economics. I don't want the Chinese building our military hardware. I don't want them doing so much of our other manufacturing that we can't ramp up if there would be a need.
Thst dog doesn't bark no more.
That's right. Economics taken alone represents naë tunnel vision that could spell our ruin. We have national security to consider. The tension you spoke of is between the idealists/economic purists and the real-world pragmatists.
Thanks, I have been in campaigns before. Stopping and looking over those 10 and 20 dollar checks really helps to let you know the 'normal' folks are for you.
Have you ever seen him on T.V.? Have you ever heard him speak in person?
Yes, before I turned TV off for good, more or less.
Duncan Hunter went to Gitmo to check out the situation after the despicable Turban Durbin called our troops nazis.
He went on one of the Sunday morning talk shows and shared his very detailed, thorough report. He is the one that informed us of the wonderful meals the terrorists at Gitmo are served. I remember he was a big hit on the FR thread that day. He made a very impressive presentation. If he has had appearances since, I don't know.
Rep. Hunter also met with the Gold Star Parents after their return from Iraq last November, inviting them all out to dinner for further conversation.
Kristinn Taylor's Iraq Report - On the Homefront
He is certainly worth taking a look at, IMHO.
You mean someone more liberal, right? I don't consider a pro-abortion, anti-Second amendment candidate a moderate any more than I would consider a White Supremist such.
That said, let's think positive and work on getting Hunter some name recognition (which we're doing everytime we type in his name :) ). He gets enough, he should get the nomination because his advantage over the others is he has no need to spin his views.
He's on my maybe list:') (no one is on the yes list yet)
"I understand that such a basic understanding of economics is lost on some many on the right and many more on FR."
Thanks for holding us all in such high regard... yeesh.
Let me ask, "Do they understand it better over at DU?"
Fascinating observation: A candidate with five hunded $20 checks would have a much broader appeal than one with five $2,000 ones, and though they have the same number of dollars in the bank, the second candidate would have to spend more of it spinning or, to use the in-vogue terminology "re-inventing" himself...
Have you seen his TV ads? You can view the movies online at www.peaceforstrengthpac.com. Also you can't miss his slapdown of CNN on Wolf Blitzer's show (also there) - it will warm your conservative heart :-)
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.