Posted on 02/08/2007 5:57:36 PM PST by westmichman
Traditional Values Coalition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right To Life Bill Offered By Rep. Duncan Hunter February 8, 2007 – On January 22, 2007 California Rep. Duncan Hunter introduced a bill to protect the right to life of unborn children. In a press release, he noted:
“Our greatest obligation as elected leaders is to protect the American people, especially those who are incapable of protecting themselves," said Congressman Hunter. Our children, whether born or unborn, deserve the opportunity to grow and live in a society that values and respects life.
“On this anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision, it is important that we reflect on the 38 million abortions that have been performed in this country since the practice was legalized in 1973. This is a national tragedy that must not go unnoticed.
“This legislation ensures that the unborn are protected from abortion and further provided the same Constitutional protections provided to all Americans. I am proud to once again introduce this important piece of legislation and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this effort as they have in the previous Congress.”
Text of Rep. Hunter’s bill is available here: Right To Life Act.
TAKE ACTION: Contact your Representative and ask that he or she sign on as a co-sponsor of this bill. Use CapWiz to send your email: CapWiz
Duncan Hunter is the only real conservative running.
It isn't my job to convince anyone to vote for him, I'm going to vote for him. >:-}
What's your assessement / mission profile for 2007 & Election '08? Your Plans, - your candidates?
Please explain that. I simply do not see that at all.
No problem, it's very simple:
We simply do not have 5 votes to overturn Roe. No serious person can dispute this. We have 2 votes to overturn Roe (Dissents in Casey), and 2 votes that are probably inclined to overturn Roe(Roberts and Alito). 3 of the remaining 5 are on record, judicially, as being opposed to overturning Roe (Writing with the majority in Casey). The other two are Ginsburg and Bryer, good luck on them being willing to overturn Roe.
Actually, although they weren't around for Casey, they were around for Steinberg v. Carhart, which struck down a partial birth abortion ban, clearly showing that they won't overturn Roe if for some reason had any delusions that they might even with their extremely liberal background.
So, if Hunter's bill were to pass with the current makeup of the court, it is virtually certain to be struck down. This, by its self, would be disheartening, but the true harm is that it would make it much less likely that Roe would ultimately be overturned.
As it goes, Roe has been upheld once, in the tragic decision of Casey, in which there was originally a 5-4 vote in favor of overturning Roe, before Justice Kennedy decided to change his vote after reading O'Connor's dissent. This made Roe not only decided, but reaffirmed. When cases are reaffirmed, they become more enshrined as a matter of case law, and are more difficult, if not virtually impossible, to overturn.
Technically, the Supreme Court has no duty to uphold longstanding president, but even some of the most conservative jurists subscribe to the belief that if a case has been affirmed and reaffirmed again and again, that even if it may have been wrong originally, it becomes 'right', because of how it has become ingrained into the society. As a matter of fact, the only justice I am aware of openly opposing this view, is Clarance Thomas. Alito is on record of as saying that he believes at some point, this is true. I believe that even Scalia has said that he gives some merit to this view, although he is unlikely to change his vote from Casey.
So, if Hunter's bill passes before the makeup of the court changes by at least one more person, it is virtually certain to be struck down by the court. As I have demonstrated, this makes it less likely that other conservative jurists, even if they are sympathetic to pro-lifers, will overturn Roe. So by passing the bill before we have the votes on the Supreme Court, we are actually doing great damage to our cause.
Anti-Abortion zelots are very similar to anti-slavery zelots during the Civil War days, who made it markedly harder to free the slaves. It, of course, necessary and morally imperative, to end slavery, and I believe the same about abortion. But it is incumbent on reasonable men to do this in a way that actually advances the cause. Lincoln understood this perfectly. Had Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation the day he walked in office, he would have lost the war (4 slave states, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and the critical Maryland, were slave states that sided with the Unionists, and would likely have joined the south under these circumstances, surrounding Washington, and instantly crippling the Union war effort.) and slavery may still exist. It is only because Lincoln realized that no matter how worthy your cause, timing is everything, that slaves are free today. Hunter's zelotry is the opposite of such prudence, and will undermine our efforts in the long term. Ironically, we are lucky it won't pass at this time.
What's your assessement / mission profile for 2007 & Election '08? Your Plans, - your candidates?
I will support anyone who: A. Is likely to win. B. Will appoint justices that are likely to overturn, or a least chip away at, Roe.
And anybody who doesn't take A. into consideration isn't sufficiently dedicated to being pro-life in my opinion, regardless of what they may think of themselves.
Instead sign up and support Duncan Hunter. If someone else better comes along there is no dishonor in changing later.
Please go to www.GoHunter08.com and volunteer and/or donate.
Also, Duncan has a strong following here on Free Republic, so join in by voting for him in the Free Republic straw poll: http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=170
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
"To those FReereps who support the right to life:
What's your assessement / mission profile for 2007 & Election '08? Your Plans, - your candidates?"
My plan is to get as many people as possible to vote for pro-life, and conservative in every way, candidates in the PRIMARIES. We can do that by talking to everyone we know, posting on FR, calling talk shows, and writing letters to editors, including religious newspapers.
My favorite candidate is Duncan Hunter.
Here's a snippet from an interview with Duncan Hunter:
John Hawkins: Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?
Duncan Hunter: Yes. You know, I'm the author of the personhood-at-conception bill which right now has over 100 co-sponsors ...that would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=114155
To all who are interested in the comparison, here are the facts - scroll to the bottom of the page of each link for a simple graph and easily interpreted visual of where each candidate falls on the Right-Left spectrum:
(This ought to be a no-brainer, people.)
jwalsh still beats you, LOL. So you can keep your 'duma$$' comment and apply it to yourself.
zbigreddogz can keep the 'dumba$$' comment.
>> Why should I vote for someone in the primaries who I disagree with?
To which I agree completely. Conservatives should stand firm on the best Conservative candidate and not buckle to the fear of losing by choosing the 'electable' candidate.
We're in an age where campaign techniques and marketing strategies have reduced the elections to razor thin margins. Mediocre candidates only facilitate these results. Only until the constituency has the confidence to select the right candidate will this change and my initial question hoped to check the level of confidence in the Republican Party.
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.