Posted on 10/28/2007 3:07:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The purpose of Free Republic is to fight for our freedom, for the constitution, for conservatism and for our traditional American heritage. We recognize that the domestic enemy of freedom is liberalism and big government socialism.
We recognize that our unalienable rights come from God not man or government and, no, they are NOT open to debate or subject to negotiation or compromise.
Sorry, RINOS, but the right to Life is our first unalienable right. This is not just a conservative political "principle" that stubborn right wing fringe nuts refuse to give up. It's an UNALIENABLE right granted to all men by GOD and no man or government can deprive us of same! Not without one hell of a fight!! Compromisers be damned!!
Your formulation is highly confusing. Is that purposeful?
Every state is required by the Constitution to do certain things. Provide for a republican form of government. Assure the protection of unalienable rights, and that the laws are applied equally. Etc.
If the state fails in that regard, just who do you think has a constitutional duty to bring them back into line?
Bingo.
Excuse me for jumoing on the band wagon to correct you without reading all the replies.
So how would you solve the problem?
Yes!
Thank you for asserting this!
Offer no support to any candidate who fails to adhere to the founding paragraph of our republic, and the Reagan pro-life platform.
Raise up those who do, and who have a deep commitment to enforcing it in our laws.
Well, you see, it’s sort of maybe in the emanations of the penumbras of the ninth-er, no, maybe the concept of ordered liberty in the 14th..
Heck, what does it matter?
We’ll just tell ‘em it’s in there somewhere and we’re sure it’s broad enough to cover killing on demand.
Well said!
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
So you would what, have the USSC simply nullified?
The fourteenth amendment reiterates this basic principle: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
Roe is unconstitutional...an aberration destroying the very soul of this nation.
I would have every individual who raises their right hand and swears to defend the Constitution do so: executive branch, legislative branch, judicial branch. At all levels of government.
SCOTUS likes to cite “international law” and most countries have much stricter abortion laws than we have. Selective citation...
I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore those rights for all Americans, born and unborn alike. The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideal of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored H.R. 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
How do the presidential candidates stand on support of bills such as H.R. 1094 and H.R. 300? It seems that this is a concrete approach to solving this issue.
Unfortunately, as pro-life as all that sounds, Dr. Paul is the primary source-point for the current idiotic notion that the federal government has no primary role in protecting the unalienable right to life. The other candidates are just following his example because they ignorantly think such a position sounds conservative. But, it is not.
Even under the best case scenario you could imagine under Paul’s formulation, very few abortions would be prevented. After all, most abortions are being committed in states that are only going to stop allowing abortions if they are forced to. By the power of the federal government.
California and Massachusetts, for example, are no more going to stop the abortion carnage on their own than South Carolina and Georgia would have stopped slavery on their own in 1860.
Yes, very selective. The Declaration is irrelevent, but ancient pagan practices are relevant.
Anyone who reads Roe has to admit they were straining and searching under rocks to cough up their conclusion.
I'm not going to pollute Jim's thread by arguing over who's more pro-life and which method is the best to stop abortion. I just posted it as a reminder that Paul is pro-life despite what other FReepers think to the contrary.
“The issue then is getting the Federal Government to recognize the unborn as a person entitled to equal protection under the law. If Congress voted on this, could the Supreme Court reverse it?”
YES, Exactly!
That is why DUNCAN HUNTER and, I think, 100 other congressmen have signed the unborn personhood legislation.
You can read about it at his website:
www.gohunter08.com
I’ve “had this discussion” with many. The conservative movement has been infected with this heresy over the course of years, and it won’t be corrected if it is not clarified and boldly confronted.
The Paul, Thompson, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee position is an attempt to revoke the Reagan pro-life platform, and take us back to Gerald Ford.
In fact, this was the EXACT position of Jerry Ford.
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.