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."
He will have to make his own way that is true enough. How he handles the MSM will determine a lot. I want a conservative to sit in the WH so I will support him. If other conservatives want him to have a shot they will have to step up to the plate and support him. It is early and he has time.
Is he willing to run as an Independent if the Republican Party decides to nominate someone more moderate?
"I wouldnt vote for me"
Something we can agree on...
You mean the fence that is never going to be built because the money was never approved. PR to fool the folks before the election.
Hunter has been on many National news talk shows and yrs. of C-SPAN.
Why not draft Laura Inghram then and get a real talker.
What you can't read the article? And I thought Freepers were smarter than average.
I would doubt it, but you'd have to ask the Congressman or someone better conected to his campaign.
I find Congressman Hunter's reasoning to be impeccable. He understands that the right to life is God-given and therefore inalienable. I'm very impressed.
They hijack those threads and then complain and name call, the minute anyone goes onto a Hunter thread and simply asks why Hunter is presidential material, or what has he done. And yes, the silly RINO stuff is way over the top; so is calling FREEPERS, especially those who have been here longer than they have, "LIBERALS."
They HAVE already alienated many FREEPERS, who were willing to give their guy a look. They are their own worst enemy!
Why aren't you directing this advice to Dave's caustic rants?
Naw, but thanks. I dont think I have a chance. Besides pissing off the Tancredo crowd and religious right, I have the problem of having been in marketing research for more than 35 years. For those who dont know what that is, think political polling and focus groups (Frank Luntz) except for commercial clients. That should kill my chances among people that deal in delusion like those that kept posting up until the day before the election of how we were going to win seats and that the polls were biased.
Hunter is an Isolationist and a protectionist, which is not good for business.
What that he made a pro-life speech. Father Dobson could have done that. Is he qualified to be president.
You say what you think and people know where you stand. I like that. We could use a lot more of that in Congress.
About Duncan Hunter
Since first being elected to Congress in 1980, Duncan Hunter has devoted himself to ensuring that our military is second to none, securing our nation’s borders, and protecting American workers from unfair competition. Hunter works on these issues because he believes that America’s greatest strength is our freedom and its protection requires our effort in all areas.
A Vietnam veteran, Duncan Hunter served in the 173rd Airborne and 75th Army Rangers and, after coming home, utilized the G.I. Bill to attend Western State University Law School in San Diego (now Thomas Jefferson School of Law). While completing his degree, Hunter supplemented his income by working in farming and construction, and opened a storefront legal office after graduation where he began serving many in the Hispanic community, often without compensation.
Hunter supplemented his income by working in farming and construction, and opened a storefront legal office after graduation where he began serving many in the Hispanic community, often without compensation.
In 1980, Hunter was asked to mount a challenge for the Congressional seat held by 18-year incumbent Lionel Van Deerlin. Despite the district having a 2-to-1 Democrat registration, Hunter won the seat in an upset. Coming to Washington, Hunter successfully sought a seat on the House Armed Services Committee where he could work on America’s national security needs. Serving on this committee throughout his career, Hunter became Chairman of the full committee in 2002, overseeing a $532 billion defense budget. During his chairmanship from 2002-2006, and now as Ranking Member of the committee, Hunter focuses his efforts on providing President Bush with the necessary resources to win our nation’s military conflicts, protecting our men and women in uniform, and developing modernization initiatives that will move new and more effective technologies into the field of battle.
Living in a border community, Hunter also came to Congress to make securing the California-Mexico border a top priority. Hunter’s goal was to make the region safe for communities on both sides of the border by providing the necessary resources to our border enforcement agencies. September 11th, however, made border security a national security issue and Hunter responded by leading efforts in Congress to seal a porous border susceptible to illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorism. Hunter’s efforts have resulted in over 59 miles of fencing and border infrastructure to date in San Diego County. Hunter also wrote the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. These fence provisions were signed into law by President Bush on October 26, 2006.
On the House Armed Services Committee, Hunter has protected U.S. defense jobs in aircraft, ship repair, machine tools, textile, steel and titanium to ensure that what he calls the “Arsenal of Democracy,” the U.S. industrial base, is maintained to provide security in time of war. Hunter’s other legislative priorities include retaining and increasing jobs across this nation, providing tax relief to hard-working families, keeping our promises to America’s veterans, protecting Social Security for present and future generations, and promoting strong family values.
Hunter resides in East San Diego County with his wife Lynne where they, like many of their neighbors, just completed re-building their Alpine home after it was lost in the October 2003 wildfires. In 2006, Duncan and Lynne celebrated their 33rd wedding anniversary; they have two sons, Duncan Duane, who served two tours in Iraq in the U.S. Marine Corps, and Sam Hunter, a business student at San Diego State University. Duncan D. and his wife, Margaret, have three children, Duncan Lee, Elizabeth Grace and Sarah Louise, and reside in Boise, Idaho. Sam was married on Valentine’s Day 2004 to the former Theresa Heger of Jamul and they had their first child, Marin, in October of 2006.
Providing for Border Enforcement
“The cornerstone of our responsibilities as elected officials is to defend and protect the American people. This was reinforced with the attacks of September 11th, which immediately made border security a national security issue. Protecting our homeland begins at our nation’s borders and it is imperative that our border enforcement agencies be provided with the necessary resources to ensure that we know both who and what are entering the country. I believe in providing Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement corps with sufficient strength to secure our borders and providing for interior enforcement throughout the country because it is imperative in our fight to protect Americans. To not do so can only be characterized as irresponsible.”
“When you discover an effective deterrent to crime, you use it. I know fencing helps secure our nation’s borders because criminal activity in every statistical category has been eliminated or decreased since we built the border fence in San Diego County. What was once a porous border, susceptible to illegal aliens, drug trafficking and terrorism, is now the standard mode in preventing drug smugglers from bringing narcotics into our neighborhoods and allowing border enforcement personnel to reinforce areas of greater need. These results led me to write the Secure Fence Act, extending the San Diego fence 854 miles across California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. Building fences in strategic locations along our international borders is a proven method of keeping America safe and, despite recent attempts to undo the Congressional mandated funding provided for this effort, I am committed to this effort and confident the fence will be built.”
He had the fence put up past the main border area here in San Diego some yrs. back and is spoken about in Congress by many as the example and why Hunter authored the recent bill.
Fighting the War On Terror
“Our success in protecting America from terrorists is completely dependant upon our ability to obtain and utilize reliable intelligence data. Our national intelligence and defense communities must be provided with the tools necessary to identify, track, stop and prosecute terrorists before they have the opportunity to strike. The fact that America has not been attacked since September 11th indicates to me that we are on the right course. I am confident we can remain on that course by providing our intelligence agencies with the resources they need while, at the same time, maintaining our commitment to the continued protection of our civil rights.”
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.