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."
"I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights," (Rudolph, et. al.)
You nailed it. Great post
Gee! I can't think of any other issue that concerns me! Certainly not victory in Iraq, Nuclear Iran or North Korea, Universal Health Care, Higher taxes, Gun control Confiscation, terrorism, immigration.
By the time a woman has signs of an eptopic, the tube has usually ruptured and the baby is lost. At this point the best you can hope for is to save the mother. Very different from an abortion.
I care about all of those too . Border Patrol is particularly important. What one issue would keep you from voting for someone though?. Everyone has one and I guess that puts us all out of touch , in someones eyes. We just have to live with it.
Thanks for answering my question. Having only seen him on T.V., I wondered if he was better in person. I do NOT find him
to be a good speaker on T.V. and that is a major problem for any candidate.
Getting the nomination, is a long, hard slog, and takes a LOT of doing; not to mention 100s of millions of dollars and a great team.
"It would take me at least 6 months to even give you a simple education in economics and business; so forget it."
Spare me the superiority complex. The "Free Trade" vs. "Fair Trade" debate has been argued very intelligently on both sides on FR for a long time now, and we obviously have a difference in philosophy. I respect your position but refuse to wear the absolute protectionist label. Ron Paul, who I don't support as a candidate, is one who admits as a Libertarian - writing for a website that is ardently free trade - that you don't have to be a "protectionist" to oppose NAFTA and CAFTA. It's most often the "free traders" who throw around the protectionist argument as an across the board label. And BTW, after you just claimed how civil you were to the Hunterites, you assert that: "your mind is closed, anyway, so I won't even give you a Cliff's Notes version." How exceedingly smug!
But the protectionist message will NOT be lost on Wall Street, big business, entrepreneurs, and many people whom Hunter needs to win over to win the primary; let alone a general election.
I have decided. I have no quandary to deal with at all.
If this guy Hunter can raise money and get nominated, fine. I don't care. If Rudi gets selected, fine. I don't care. McCain? Sounds okay to me. Romney? Great. Sounds fine to me. Brownback? Okay.
I am voting STRICTLY on principle this cycle. I am sending money STRICTLY on principle this cycle. And you know what that principle is? The most admirable, noble and fundamental principal that can exist.
HILLARY MUST BE BEATEN. THE ONLY CRITERION FOR A GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IS THE ABILITY TO ERASE THAT LEFT WING, DECEITFUL TRAITOR FROM EVER ASSUMING THE PRESIDENCY.
If the GOP nominee chooses to be pro choice to do that, I don't care. If he becomes pro illegals to do that, I don't care. If he wants tax increases across the board, I don't care. All that matters is beating her. Wherever the GOP nominee is on the ideology spectrum does not matter in comparison to the TOTAL IMPERATIVE of keeping that quintessential traitor out of the White House.
THAT is a principled stand.
But they continue to do it. Perhaps you can call a meeting and get them to cease doing so? :-)
Hunter's candidacy is great news for conservatives as they will now actually have a primary candidate to support who doesn't share Hillary Clinton's ideology.
The tension you spoke of is between the idealists/economic purists and the real-world pragmatists.
Thanks. You spell it out much more clearly.
"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 market's doing a wonderful job here in NE Ohio at providing new jobs at Quiznos, Pakatans, and Wal Mart. No offense, but this basic understanding of economics you set forth sounds like something out of an introductory Macro textbook. When we outsource a job to a 3rd world country, the manufacturing process ceases to take place in a purely market system by virtue of the simple fact that most of those countries are not representative republics. That's why you can pay someone substandard wages there - they have no other choice. The free market becomes global and tainted by the forces within authoritarian countries. Free markets presuppose free players.
But they continue to do it. Perhaps you can call a meeting and get them to cease doing so? :-)\
I've been married for 23 years. I'm getting pretty good at not noticing things that annoy me. Although that Duncan Hines thing is so childish after 20 times that I'll have to work on that one.
And those who argue for protectionism continually lose the debate and so will Hunter, IF he ever gets into that area, in the primaries. That kind of populism attracts more Dems, than it does Conservatives and NO Dems can vote in most primary elections.
I'm not talking about NAFTA nor CAFTA. Hunter is a protectionist and talks about it in other terms, than just those two alphabet lettered things. His anachronistic positions are all wrong for the 21rst century.
That repluy, was CIVIL. I did NOT call anyone any names. I did NOT play any games with Duncan's name. Neither did I post a photoshopped picture nor any of the other usual Hunterite tactics.
And no, NOT "smug" at all; just a reasonable statement of why I wasn't going to waste my my time. And lookee lookeee...it was proved to be a valid statement after all. :-)
That is THE singularly MOST principled post made to FR, that I have seen in the past TEN years!
More time in front of a camera and I'm sure he will be great! BTW, there are some veterans groups standing by to support him, if that counts for anything. ;*)
"And no, NOT "smug" at all; just a reasonable statement of why I wasn't going to waste my my time. And lookee lookeee...it was proved to be a valid statement after all. :-)"
Like I said, Smug. But that's okay, us simple folk can't keep up with such penetrating intellectual accumen.
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.