Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff

Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.

The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bashrudy; bush; cultureoflife; duncandoughnuts; gop; helphillarywin; infanticide; pba; presidentbush; prolife; republicancongress; rudyisbad; scotus; slamonrudy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 921-933 next last
To: jrooney

Amen. This is the greatest news for pro-lifers since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. Thank God for this courageous president.


361 posted on 04/18/2007 9:18:34 AM PDT by Deo et Patria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: writeblock

Only because Bush was such a wimp. Reagan and Bush 41 got nominees through the Senate.


362 posted on 04/18/2007 9:18:37 AM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: NYRepublican72
no matter how badly the Warren court ignored state's rights when creating a "right" that doesn't explicitly exist in the Constituion.

Not saying that I agree with Roe, but the 9th amendment makes it clear that the rights explicitly listed in the constitution are not an exhaustive list.

It is scary that politically active people in this country believe that rights must be explicitly listed to be right retained by the People. Remember, the constitution is a document that puts limits on government power.

363 posted on 04/18/2007 9:18:40 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

No, the new line is that this decision just gave Hillary the election since “most people want abortion”.


364 posted on 04/18/2007 9:18:40 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Thirty-four years later and this minimal change is all that decades of political effort have achieved.

It would be far better to bypass SCOTUS and return abortion to the “states and the people” where it belongs. Roe vs. Wade was a grievous error and only a Constitutional Amendment will remove it from SCOTUS actions.

365 posted on 04/18/2007 9:19:03 AM PDT by shrinkermd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #366 Removed by Moderator

Apparently, the court determined that this was not covered by the “emanating penumbra” clause of the U.S. Constitution.


367 posted on 04/18/2007 9:19:19 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Doing God’s will and saving babies and caring for the poor, the weak, the sick and the orphan comes at a steep price... We are not credible if we don’t face the full reality, and accept the higher social welfare burdens that our beliefs require.

I'm assuming that by "higher social welfare burdens" that you mean government and higher taxes. But what makes you think that it is within the purview of government in the first place, or that the government has any competence whatever to do any of these things? Even if you are correct that we have to have a "fully articulated economic and social welfare plan for dealing with about 20 million additional minors, it is a non-sequiter to simply assume that it is the job of government to "solve" these problems. The responsibilty and competency lies elsewhere. If your predictions are right, God help us if we rely on the government to do those things that were never intended by God for it to do. The end result will be even more of the problem that the government was supposed to "fix". If the present manifestations of the abject failures of the Welfare State, indeed, its exacerbation of such problems don't convince you of that proposition I don't know what else possibly could.

Cordially,

368 posted on 04/18/2007 9:20:03 AM PDT by Diamond
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Deo et Patria
Ditto!  Proud to be a Republican.
369 posted on 04/18/2007 9:20:04 AM PDT by scratcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

“Only because Bush was such a wimp. Reagan and Bush 41 got nominees through the Senate.”

Like Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter?

Quit bashing the President and give him the credit he deserves.


370 posted on 04/18/2007 9:20:11 AM PDT by Deo et Patria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

A good step forward. Abortion is still legal.

Democrats are baby-killers.


371 posted on 04/18/2007 9:20:33 AM PDT by rbosque
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

GW is anything but a wimp and posters like yourself are pathetic with your bashing in the face of a victory.


372 posted on 04/18/2007 9:23:41 AM PDT by jrooney (The democrats are the friend of our enemy and the enemy of our friends. Attack them, not GW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Deprivation of innocent life is not a state's right.

This is not a confederacy.

We have a federal union of states that are united on the principles outlined in the Preamble. In order to form a more perfect union than was possible under a confederate system, all states agreed to a federal Constitution whose purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

For a state to claim the right to kill the innocent, it would have to secede from the union.

373 posted on 04/18/2007 9:23:50 AM PDT by Gelato (... a liberal is a liberal is a liberal ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
Bush appointees. So how are they for a legacy?

And they say he's no different then a Democrat

374 posted on 04/18/2007 9:23:57 AM PDT by Mo1 ( http://www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fatima

Praise the Lord!


375 posted on 04/18/2007 9:24:01 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

YES!!

A strong epidemic of boogie fever is breaking out in the Silverback house!


376 posted on 04/18/2007 9:24:12 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
Wonderful news! Praise The Lord and Thank You President Bush!

The fact there is still a legal procedure where a "doctor" can reach in and dismember a living baby is both sad and insane. I had never heard of it until the press - in it's apparent disappointment at the ruling - threw that in our face lest we get too cheerful. They've done an exemplary job of hiding that from the public until now.

377 posted on 04/18/2007 9:24:22 AM PDT by 4woodenboats (Another vulgar lib tossed out like yesterday's news-Oh, that was yesterday's news....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jrooney

Lefty’s are in a panic.


378 posted on 04/18/2007 9:25:14 AM PDT by scratcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

THANK GOD! And may He bless our faithful president and the judges he righteously appointed.


379 posted on 04/18/2007 9:27:22 AM PDT by Right-Wing Champion (God Bless the USA- Home of the free, because of the brave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense
The majority of people are against partial birth abortion anyway.

True, but not strongly enough to make them switch parties. While the number of voters who are against abortion may be about half of the county, only a subset of those voters care enough to make it an important issue to them.

On the other hand, the voters (especially women) who are pro-choice take Roe very seriously and would easily defect to vote for a democrat that they have nothing in else in common with, if the Dem would vow to protect Roe v Wade.

If the Republicans embrace this decision and campaign on trying to overturn Roe v Wade then the Dems will put on beating on them in 2008.

380 posted on 04/18/2007 9:27:43 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 921-933 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson