Replies

“Nice rant. It has nothing to do with the fact that overturning Roe v. Wade sends the issue back to the states, however.”

Rant=”to talk noisily, excitedly, or wildly; to scold violently.”

Try using your words more carefully.

What I wrote does not meet the definition unless you feel I am scolding you for your ignorant remarks to which you have no reasonable reply. If you imagine it to be a violent scolding, well....

Abortion=the direct killing of an unborn human being and is not a states’ rights issue.

SCOTUS had the duty to overturn abortion laws as violations of federal law.

Instead, they enshrined murder into law-an unconstitutional position.

You claimed that Thompson's position is not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. But that is exactly what Thompson's position is -- I think the problem here is that you don't understand what the effect of overturning Roe v. Wade is. You seem to be laboring under the false impression that overturning Roe v. Wade would result in a national prohibition of abortion -- the truth is that it will allow states to set their own abortion laws without federal restrictions, just as was true prior to Roe v. Wade.

The practical effect of that would be the probable saving of hundreds of thousands of lives each year, as about 20-25 states would likely pass laws banning or severely restricting abortions.

Abortion=the direct killing of an unborn human being and is not a states’ rights issue. SCOTUS had the duty to overturn abortion laws as violations of federal law. Instead, they enshrined murder into law-an unconstitutional position.

In order to win, and I do support your goal if not your strategy, you must understand your enemy and your battlefield. The abortion question is part of a tangled web of legal decisions over a 60-year period that have literally removed all logical basis from our Constitutional law, starting with the "wall of separation" decision in 1948 that elevated atheists to the same moral standing as those who believe in a nation "under God." Once that foundational understanding was weakened, all legal supports for traditional marriage, keeping sex within marriage, punishing adultery and viewing children as an immutable obligation of their parents were torn down in many, many Supreme Court cases, one case at a time, over many, many years. Now the institution of marriage has been so weakened under law that it is virtually gone except in the hopes and dreams of conservatives. Fully 37% of children in this country are now born out of wedlock.

If you want to hit a target effectively, you have to aim at the center of it, which is the underlying legal understanding that either God exists or God does not exist; and further, that the God in question is the culturally historic God of Abraham, on whose definitions of spiritual law our Constitution was based. This is a huge problem to solve, due to the First Amendment cult of what has become "freedom from religion" — as if God is contained within a religion instead of factually existing over and above and beyond the limits of a religion.

The abortion question is one of many that are symptoms, not causes, of this central problem: the impossibility of being a nation Under God while simultaneously ruling in favor of the godless entitlements of socialism. Conservatives have yet to understand the need to bring cases proactively to the SCOTUS in order to solve this dilemma fundamentally; on the other hand, we have had a liberal-slanted court since the days of FDR which has been highly unlikely to rule in favor of recognizing the ultimate supremacy of God. Only under Bush and his two appointments of Roberts and Alito have we had a ghost of a chance to make change. We need at least one other Federalist Originalist on the bench to have a shot at overturning the godless socialist revolution that encompasses a far wider range of issues than just abortion.