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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Is First Step to Outlawing Abortion
Operation Rescue ^ | April 18 2007 | Operatuion Rescue

Posted on 04/18/2007 8:32:50 AM PDT by jacknhoo

“This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If partial-birth abortions are unconstitutional, then all abortion should be as well. There is little difference between a second-trimester partial-birth abortion and a 12-week suction abortion. In fact, the suction abortion is probably more gruesome because it involves complete dismemberment of a live baby.”


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; constitution; cultureoflife; moral
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 next last
Nobody should have the right to murder!
1 posted on 04/18/2007 8:32:56 AM PDT by jacknhoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
.“This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation,”

Unfortunately a very small step. We still need one or two more Supreme Court justices before Roe is in trouble.

2 posted on 04/18/2007 8:34:44 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Best news all day.


3 posted on 04/18/2007 8:38:01 AM PDT by tobyhill (only wimps believe in retreat in defeat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

My impression about this ruling is that while it affirms the ban on only the most grisly form of abortion, it ALSO re-affirms the “right” (disguised as “privacy”) of women to kill their kids at will.

I’m not so sure that anti-abortion folks have much beyond the partial-birth ban to celebrate here.......


4 posted on 04/18/2007 8:38:12 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Exactly! In fact, I want to see the Hannibal Cannibal Liberals defend infant dismemberment in front of the Amerrican people!

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

5 posted on 04/18/2007 8:40:12 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

If it prevents the murder of 1 human being it’s worth celebrating.


6 posted on 04/18/2007 8:41:20 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
Anyone notice that Thomas left open the possibility to readdress this issue as a violation of the commerce clause.

PBA law is ripe for a new challenge.

7 posted on 04/18/2007 8:42:12 AM PDT by zarf (Her hair was of a dank yellow, and fell over her temples like sauerkraut......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
I’m not so sure that anti-abortion folks have much beyond the partial-birth ban to celebrate here

If we can learn anything from the Left, it is that the way to get things done is incrementally. It was by increments that we have reached the point where it is legal to dismember a live baby and it will be in increments, God willing, that we return to a civilized society.

8 posted on 04/18/2007 8:43:04 AM PDT by Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Hopefully all our tax money sent to the UN for abortions in other countries we have to fund (for some unknown reason) will now stop.


9 posted on 04/18/2007 8:43:13 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

You’re so right!


10 posted on 04/18/2007 8:44:56 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pete
If we can learn anything from the Left, it is that the way to get things done is incrementally.

I agree with you 100%. But I'm still worried that once Roe v. Wade is overturned we'll have years of legislative work ahead of us to undue all the abortion bans that actually AFFIRM certain kinds of abortions while banning others.

11 posted on 04/18/2007 8:47:52 AM PDT by The Blitherer ("What the devil is keeping the Yanks?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

It’s the very first step forward at the level of SCOTUS.

Pro-aborts will emphasize that it did not actually ban any form of abortion, but distinguished this procedure from “normal” abortions.

Pro-lifers will emphasize that it shows that legislators and courts have a right to put limitations on abortion, and will try to roll the “abortion right” back step by step if necessary.

Last fall’s elections were a grave setback to the pro-life cause. This decision changes the momentum once more, and puts the pro-aborts on the defensive.

Last fall’s Democrat victories were NOT a vote in favor of abortion, since most of the candidates ran as blue dog conservatives. But the PERCEPTION is very important, since it will determine how openly Democrat senators can shoot down judicial candidates on the basis of abortion if there is another opening in the court. With Roberts and Alito, they didn’t dare openly oppose pro-life candidates, although they muttered to their base out of the sides of their mouths. This decision may warn them that they still need to be cautious.


12 posted on 04/18/2007 8:49:53 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Blessings to God, however, that at least there are 5 persons in American government, who recognize that life, even some life has value and that only God, has the authority to decide when to end that life.


13 posted on 04/18/2007 8:51:55 AM PDT by zerosix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
My hyper-liberal law prof made sure to note, in class, how to destroy a law or ruling: find an exception, get it recognized, then expand the exception, then expand the number of exceptions until the original law/ruling is meaningless.

(Not that she used class as an activist training ground or anything.)

14 posted on 04/18/2007 8:54:42 AM PDT by Teacher317 (Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
The kid says, "Whoa, I just dodged a bullet".


15 posted on 04/18/2007 8:56:07 AM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
To ALL GW Bashers - How do you feel now? This only happened because of GW! Thank God for this great man and great president. We are lucky to have him. For those of you that have abandoned him, bash him on FR and stab him in the back, shame on you! GW, a great president that deserves more respect from conservatives and republicans.
16 posted on 04/18/2007 8:58:06 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 15 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo

Curious. Are there any conservatives on FreeRepublic that take a pro-choice position? If so, where is your limit?


17 posted on 04/18/2007 8:58:27 AM PDT by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

Do you realize that beautiful ultrasound picture would be considered ‘hate speech’ by pro-babykillers if you showed it to an expecting mother? :*(

Wackos.


18 posted on 04/18/2007 9:07:38 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jacknhoo
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Is First Step to Outlawing Abortion

Not if NARAL Rudy is nominated.

19 posted on 04/18/2007 9:08:45 AM PDT by Petronski (FRED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero; Pete; traderrob6

Should the specious “right to privacy” afforded to women who wish to kill their kids (in private) be extended to anyone who wishes to murder someone in “private” where there is a genuine and right to privacy? And going one step further, should that slightly different murder be financed with taxpayer funding?

My understanding of Roe is that it is based on a perverse interpretation of the 4th amendment.....am I mistaken?

” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It seems like invoking the Roe-style interpretation of the 4th amendment would have also precluded them from jailing Kevorkian, based upon the same “rights” of his patients....

(I’m just grumbling aloud and in public, FWIW)


20 posted on 04/18/2007 9:09:56 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-54 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