It will simply use Roe’s words against itself to restore Constitutional rights to unborn human beings.
Yes! Miracles do happen.
Posted on 01/18/2008 4:28:20 AM PST by IrishMike
Thirty-five years ago this Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that produced this provocative paradox: a moderately pro-life nation with the most anti-life abortion law in the West.
Few court decisions have had as broad an impact on American life as Roe vs. Wade, which subsequent courts have interpreted as having discovered a constitutional right to abortion for any reason and at any time during pregnancy. Since Roe, at least 50 million abortions (equal to the combined populations of 25 states) have been performed, and its demographic repercussions continue to shape voting patterns and are a driving force behind America’s fast-approaching entitlements crisis.
No other court decision looms as conspicuously over the 2008 presidential campaign. And for good reason. Consider that when George W. Bush took office on January 20, 2001, three of the Supreme Court’s nine justices were 69 years old or older. On inauguration day 2009, six justices, including all five of the court’s left-leaning members, will be age 69 or older. Most legal scholars believe the court is just one vote shy of overturning Roe, and many believe the next president may make as many as three appointments to the court.
All these numbers help explain why presidential candidates are compelled to pledge allegiance to the type of judges -- either “pro-Roe” or “anti-Roe” -- they would nominate to the court.
Yet, despite the prominent role Roe continues to play in American life, the public remains shockingly uninformed about what Roe means and what would happen if it were overturned. To many Americans, Roe is simply a synonym for abortion rights, and that if one supports even a limited right to abortion, one must also support Roe. A recent poll by the Real Women’s Voices coalition found that while 65 percent of Americans said they are familiar with Roe, only 29 percent could select an accurate description of the ruling.
Last May, the Judicial Confirmation Network and the Ethics and Public Policy Center commissioned a national survey of registered voters that attempted to measure precisely what the public knows about Roe. When respondents were asked a generic question about whether or not they wanted Roe overturned, a majority (55 percent) said “no,” and only 34 percent supported overturning Roe. But when respondents were told what Roe means -- that it prohibits states from limiting abortion during the first six months of pregnancy, and that if Roe were overturned, states could pass laws that would permit abortion -- the share that opposed reversing Roe dropped seven points, to 48 percent. Meanwhile, the portion that supported overturning Roe jumped nine points, to 43 percent. Overall, that’s a 16 point swing.
Notably, the survey actually understates how extreme Roe is. Surveyors didn’t explain that the “health” exception to late term prohibitions is so expansive that abortion is effectively available for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, a rule polls show the vast majority of Americans oppose.
An equally damaging myth about Roe is that if it were overturned, abortion would be outlawed. Period. Abortion advocates promote this myth in order to convince voters of the imperativeness of electing pro-Roe candidates.
Even some pro-lifers seem to have accepted this notion when they state that their ultimate goal is the reversal of Roe v. Wade. “If we can just get one more pro-life justice on the Supreme Court,” they insist, “then Roe will be overturned and abortion will be a thing of the past.”
The truth, however, is that Roe’s reversal would not end the abortion wars. Rather, it would mark the beginning of a battle to which the last 35 years has been prelude. The day after Roe’s reversal, abortion policy would revert back to the states, which, as author Jeffrey Rosen has written: “would ignite one of the most explosive political battles since the civil rights movement, if not the Civil War.”
In the aftermath of Roe’s demise, some states would ban or severely restrict abortion. A bigger group of more populous states, mostly along the coasts, would most likely pass laws guaranteeing the same access to abortion they have now. In the end, as Gerald Rosenberg, a University of Chicago professor who studies state abortion laws, recently said, “My guess is that no more than a dozen states could sustain a total abortion ban, and these are principally states where few abortions are performed today.”
So, what would a post-Roe America look like? According to Nancy Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights: “I can imagine a fifty-front war going on for the next thirty years.”
Of course, pro-lifers do not believe that the protection of innocent human life should ultimately be left to the states. We fought a civil war over the conviction that some issues are too fundamental to be decided state by state. Just as slavery was an assault on human dignity, the slaughter of millions of unborn children is an assault on a natural human right that exists prior to, and regardless of, the whims of a majority.
America’s fundamental commitment to the right to life is made clear in both the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths…) and the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (no state shall, “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).
Does this mean overturning Roe v. Wade should not remain a top priority for pro-lifers? Absolutely not. Overturning Roe is crucial because it would allow a real discussion about abortion to take place, and that’s a discussion pro-lifers can win. But in order for that discussion to begin, pro-lifers must first dispel the myths about Roe.
Let’s get the Right to Life Act passed.
That will not require a 50 state battle.
That will not require the years it would take for the Human Life Amendment.
It will simply use Roe’s words against itself to restore Constitutional rights to unborn human beings.
It’s a “woman’s freedom issue” according to this newbie:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953681/posts?page=26#26
I
110TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 618
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the
Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JANUARY 22, 2007
Mr. HUNTER (for himself, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS
of Kentucky, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JOHNSON
of Illinois, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CANNON,
Mr. WAMP, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. RENZI, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. ROGERS
of Kentucky, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr.
BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mr. HERGER, Mr.
ALEXANDER, Mr. MANZULLO, Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia,
Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. LINCOLN
DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. FORBES, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. HALL of Texas,
Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. PICKERING, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr.
DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TIAHRT, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. FORTUN˜O,
Mr. AKIN, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. HOEKSTRA,
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Ms. FOXX, Mr. SALI, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky,
Mr. TERRY, Mr. PITTS, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. JORDAN of
Ohio, Mr. GOODE, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. GILLMOR, Mr.
SHADEGG, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. WALBERG, Mr.
CARTER, and Mr. GOODLATTE) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of
amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of
each born and preborn human person.
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6652 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2
•HR 618 IH
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Life Act’’.
5 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.
6 To implement equal protection for the right to life
7 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant
8 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con9
gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary
10 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of
11 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
12 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right
13 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each
14 human being.
15 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
16 For purposes of this Act:
17 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The
18 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include
19 each and every member of the species homo sapiens
20 at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the
21 moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at
22 which an individual member of the human species
23 comes into being.
24 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ used in the
25 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the
VerDate Aug 31 2005 22:06 Jan 23, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H618.IH H618 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3
•HR 618 IH
1 United States and other applicable provisions of the
2 Constitution includes the District of Columbia, the
3 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other terri4
tory or possession of the United States.
Since most of the aborted babies would have been born to liberal parents, it might be safe to assume that most of those 50 millions would have grown up being indoctrinated with liberal values.
They would have been an aloost monlithic voting bloc.
Algore would be in his second term right now.
I hate to say it, but the libs are doing us a favor by aborting themselves out of existence.
Still, the Right to Life act needs to be passed.
Comments???
January 22, 2007
_________________________________________
Duncan Hunter, MC
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Introduction of the Right to Life Act
Mr. Speaker:
One of the most fascinating and popular shows on television today, In the Womb on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero. Watching these babies suck their thumbs, smile and cry has led many to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child. For many years now, I have introduced an important piece of legislation that fulfills what I believe to be one of our most important obligations as elected leaders of this great nation; protecting our unborn children from harm. I am proud to once again be introducing the Right to Life Act and I am optimistic of its future.
Unfortunately, over 1.3 million abortions are performed in the United States each year and over 38 million have been performed since abortion was legalized in 1973. Mr. Speaker, this is a national tragedy. It is the duty of all Americans to protect our children - born and unborn. This bill, the Right to Life Act, would provide blanket protection to all unborn children from the moment of conception.
In 1973, the United States Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, refused to determine when human life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In the decision, however, the Court did concede that, “If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants’ case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the Fourteenth Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that we have the authority to determine when life begins.
The Right to Life Act does what the Supreme Court refused to do in Roe v. Wade and recognizes the personhood of the unborn for the purpose of enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: (1) Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibiting states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment providing Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment; (3) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article I, Section 8, giving Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution.
This legislation will protect millions of future children by prohibiting any state or federal law that denies the personhood of the unborn, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade. I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. This measure will recognize the unborn child as a human being and protect the fetus from harm. The Right to Life Act will finally put our unborn children on the same legal footing as all other persons and I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this important effort.
God have mercy.
Read Later.
47% of voters voted for a lying traitor in the last election. I see no lack of liberals in this country.
“I see no lack of liberals in this country.”
Give ‘em time...give ‘em time.......... ;)
I firmly believe that life begins at conception and that the preborn child deserves all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen.
............................
Yes Sir
Yes, they do, and Norma McCorvey’s conversion is one of them.
She was exploited by the lawyers and the courts who were seeking someone to use as a vehicle for their purpose.
As that 28 yo man in Florida told Rudi
“1/3 of my generation....”
Good article. Thanks for posting.
My heart grieves for these 50 million babies. Just think of their potential lives....
My daughter and her husband are expecting April 3, and we thank God for this blessing.
Uh, I am a pro-lifer, and I do believe that.
I agree completely. The first election the effect would have had an effect on was in 1994 when republicans took the House and Senate. And by the time Al Gore ran, over 14 million had been aborted. Even if a small portion of those had grown up to be politically active liberals, Al would have won, and we would be cleaning up terrorist target all over this country.
That is unconstitutional.
It’s unconstitutional to have state murder laws?
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.