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."
Just Wondering. He's the kind of guy the Republican Party is going to have to give us to win, even if he isn't who they want. IMOOC
“American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way street” with a new policy of fair trade for the American worker.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
He hasn't really had the kinds of jobs that would give one managerial experience and it was all prior to 1980.
Are you familiar with his stance on business? It is heavily protectionist. That is NOT a good thing.
Have you ever seen him on T.V.? Have you ever heard him speak in person?
You guys are marketing your man to be president of the United States. If you know anything about marketing, having a better mousetrap doesnt make any difference if no one knows it. Thanks for telling me something about Hunter other than he has gotten elected Rep and he is pro life, pro border security, etc. So am I but am I qualified. I wouldnt vote for me.
Rep. Hunter is a Vietnam Veteran who served in the airborne and Rangers. He has been a member of the Armed Services Committee his entire Congressional Career and chaired the Committee since 2002- essential since the beginning of the War on Terror.
Sounds like he might make a good Deputy secretary of Defense. I dont think he has enough experience working with large bureacracies to take Gates job. I dont see how that qualifies him for president.
Rep. Hunter believes in, and has been in the forefront of the fight for, protecting the borders. He espouses his believes in a non-racist, legal, populist view that will resonate with people from non-border states as well as with those from traditional border communities.
How successful has he been in effecting his beliefs. Last I looked, we still have an immigration problem and the little congress did last year is being undone by the Dems this year.
Finally, Rep. Hunter is a family man who has been married for 33 years, has two sons (one in the military) and several grandchildren. He is pro-life and makes no excuses about his stance.
So is my dad, but he was married for over fifty years. I dont think he believes that qualified him for presidential duties.
The last bit, re business is a nomination killer.
He is even more wooden, on T.V., than algore.
You still haven't shown me why I should support him.
I've been happily married for just a few months shy of 40 years, I am a CONSERVATIVE, so I guess I should throw my hat in the ring and enter the primary too. Right?
This is his most recent
Duncan Hunter Introduces Bill To Pardon Convicted Border Patrol Agents with over 76 co sponsors
He has others re military, border, trede.
Duncan Hunter on Abortion
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Budget & Economy
Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994)
Duncan Hunter on Civil Rights
Voted YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 7% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Duncan Hunter on Corporations
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 83% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting record. (Dec 2003)
Duncan Hunter on Crime
Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)
Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994)
Duncan Hunter on Drugs
Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Duncan Hunter on Education
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)
Rated 17% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
more...
Are you sure that Duncan Hunter isnt a stalking horse for Pitchfork Pat. Sounds the same to me. Kind of reminds me of that socialist guy that caused Gore to lose the presidency in 2000.
Paddy is against the war and hates Israel.
Hunter supports the war effort and supporter of Israel.
also his son, 2 tours in Iraq
So why is he more qualified than the other congressmen and women who also voted?
OK, now we have one accomplishment. Built a fence to protect San Diego. But the new fence is never going to be built. Wont be funded by the Dems. They will want to use the money for aid stations to provide water and shade for the undocumented workers.
His stance on trade ( at least the stuff I've seen posted to FR ), is terrible for America and Americans.
And while his votes, that you've posted are good ones, WHAT makes him presidential timber, different from other House members with the same voting history?
Did you just watch him with Blitzer? Have you seen him on T.V. before? Have you ever seen him speak in person? If so, is he better in person, than he is on T.V.?
And yet, on CNN, just now, he was NOT pro the WOT. Has he changed his mind?
Have seen him in person several times. Many dozens of times on TV.
If there is any one person in DC in support of the War, it is Hunter. His son quit a good job and joined the Marines
and served two tours in Iraq. Rummy, and all the military brass have been his supporters for yrs.
Gotta Love those kids..That's what we're fightin' for...,ours were like that at one time..
Hunter is an Isolationist and a protectionist, which is not good for business..
What about the Business of this country,,America,,it's time to take care of our own..!
Well said. I like Hunter and respect his military service. I just wish he had ran for President in 2000 or CA Governor in 1998. Get some executive experience under his belt.
His being a Congressman is a huge liability. Like you said, he's just one of 435. Plus outside of this and national security legislation, I want to know his stand on fiscal and limiting the size of government matters.
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.