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

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: 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 ]

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