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."
All politics is local friend. The former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee is not some back woods hick staring around goggle-eyed at the fancy digs in the big city.
Thanks and keep up the good work...
Yea. We need to make sure he gets the ground support necessary to make a go of this thing. Volunteered yet?
Allen before he threw it all away with one stupid comment. Now I kind of lean toward Romney but if it was a choice between McCain, Guiliani and Hillary, I wouldnt have any trouble pulling the lever for McCain or Giuliiani. Show me any one with the credentials to run and the ability to win and I will consider them. Dont show me deluded wannabees who cant even win their own state. True Romney would have a hard time with Massachusetts, but Hunter has no chance with California. What they believe is a lot less important than can they win and govern. I have no trouble believing that McGovern and Mondale strongly believed in what they were doing, its just that based on what they believed they were unelectable.
Its because you've never had to run a statewide race. Those in protected congressional districts can take the most extreme positions, left or right, and survive. Those who run for governor or senator must actually think and support their positions. The last senator to win the Presidency was kennedy and that was more because of his charisma and the fact that his competition was all senators than anything else. Most winning candidates have EXECUTIVE experience, i.e., they have been governors or got considered because they served as Vice President.
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.
That elimiates most Americans and even more than half of those on Free Republic. If you are a virtual unknown to the rabid base, what makes you think that people whose top issue is not morals and abortion are going to take to him. The last thing the country wants is a "scolder in chief". We need independents to win and they are the least likely to be won over my pro-life or anti-abortion appeals. His knowledge of the defense bureacracy may make him an admirable candidate for assistant secretary of defense or as an executive in a defense contractor but it doesnt make him suitable to be President. Congressmen and Senators, if they are able propose legislation that actually gets voted on and made into law. Otherwise they are just taking stands. They have no executive responsibility for making anything work or accomplishing anything. In fact, their own "process oriented" thinking process is a hindrance to their becoming effective executives.
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.
Again, getting elected in a small congressional distict is no big achievement. You have to proove you can win at least statewide to have past election be relevant. And if knowing the national game is so important, then why not run Karl Rove, he certain exudes as much charisma.
Because having a stable marriage with kids tends to quash any conservative scruples about morals.
Who gives a damn. While it may be nice to have a stable marriage, what the country wants is someone that can be trusted with big decisions.
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".
If Iraq is still a big issue in November of 2008, it wont matter whether your kid served there or not, Republicans are not likely to win. We have to demonstrate a vast improvement in the situation on the ground and we have to be removing troops from the country or it's President Hillary.
I was attempting to use sacrasm. Sorry if I wasnt clear. Must have been my hunger pains interfering with my judgement.
Keep telling yourself that.
>>
THAT is a principled stand.
Keep telling yourself that.
>>
I intend to. Every single day until November 2008.
Yes.
That I have - and will submit my $2,100 maximum by law donation today...I hope others join me!
You are the man...
Go...
...however, I am but one man. I view the elections of 2008 as pivotal. Our Republic is on the brink of a disaster as great as it faced under the non-leadership of Jimmy Carter some 30 years ago. Fortunately for our nation, Ronald Reagan emerged to lead us back from the brink. I believe Duncan Hunter can do the same and would urge everyone who loved the Gipper to support Hunter not just with our voices, but with our wallets.
$2,100 is not a small amount of cash, but pledging it to help save our nation is a noble use for it. So is $500, $100, $50, $20 - whatever you can send.
Howard Dean managed an internet fund raising coup in 2004, there is no reason that Duncan Hunter cannot accomplish the same thing in 2007 if we the people work for it.
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.