Posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:42 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Yesterday, January 22, saw a veritable army of pro-lifers participate in the 35th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This demonstration of public sentiment was first held in 1974 to mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. In that decision, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Since then, an estimated 50,000,000 babies have been killed in the womb in the United States.
As we observed yesterday, ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
...at yesterday’s rally, Gray told those gathered that the battle for life had to be won at the federal level, that it was not enough to send the issue back to the states, where abortion could be legal in one state and illegal in the next.
Of course, that strategy overlooks the fact that abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade that interjected the federal government into the abortion issue in the first place and at the same time made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States. Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
***...reopen the issues the war had settled.***
The death of States’ Rights and the end of the principle that this nation was literally founded upon.
MamaTexan does a pretty good job in post 79 as far as the legitimacy of the 14th. And might I add 2 Northern States rescinded their votes, though this was a minor inconvenience for Congress, to be dealt with by pretending it didn’t happen.
***Whether or not the states had been in the Union, they forfeited their Congressional representation by their acts of secession.***
They didn’t, according to the federal government. So why then should the federal government have any need whatsoever to “readmit” them?
The act of secession itself may have been invalid; withdrawing from Congress was not.
What is withdrawing from Congress if not an act of secession?
Ron Paul has been the most conservative, and pro-life congressman we have.
That’s why the kooks hate him.
Bump for later...
It was clearly an attempt at secession; but the validity of that attempt is another issue which doesn’t bear on the validity of the 14th Amendment.
And what of those who absorb a twin in the womb...manslaughter charges?Actually, they would be two people sharing the same body.
Even Brennan acknowledged that if the personhood of fetuses were recognised it would require the states, under their existing criminal statutes, to punish and act to prevent abortion.How would that require the states to punish abortion?
The 14th amendment only prohibits state action, not private action.
Murderers are prosecuted under state laws defining and prohibiting murder, not under the Fourteenth Amendment.
It would have had to have been considered at least manslaughter under equal protection.
Stretch your mind a bit.
If the former Confederate states had passed a law saying that the killing of uppity freedmen was permissible under certain circumstances, that would not have been permitted to stand, even though the murder statutes remained the purview of the states—any such exception permitting the slaughter of freedmen would have been struck down.
Similarly, any exception to criminal law permitting the slaughter of the unborn is a similar violation of equal protection. A state cannot morally distinguish arbitrarily between differents classes of persons in its laws with regard to the protection of life without a compelling state interest.
Do we customarily try children for manslaughter when they shoot someone playing with a gun the child mistakes for a toy?
There really is no absurdity which will not be thrown up in an attempt to obfuscate infanticide, is there?
But thanks for trying to confuse the issue.
It would have had to have been considered at least manslaughter under equal protection.And how exactly would the federal government compel a state government to prosecute one of its citizens?
If the former Confederate states had passed a law saying that the killing of uppity freedmen was permissible under certain circumstances, that would not have been permitted to stand, even though the murder statutes remained the purview of the states—any such exception permitting the slaughter of freedmen would have been struck down.But who would have standing to challenge the law? The prosecutor is not going to challenge the law. And why would a prospective defendant challenge the law?
Good points. I was pondering the cannibalism charge, but you’re closer to the mark, I think.
Hey, this idea might not stop many abortions, but at least it would give the lawyers lots of cash.
Any family member could sue the state for negligence resulting in wrongful death. The offending parts of the criminal statute would be overturned, exposing the state government to federal action if it did not provide equal protection.
Basically, in the end, the 101st Airborne has to show up if the state will not provide equal protection.
“Let’s make ‘em stop.”
We stop it by restoring the Constitution, true federalism and limited government.
Not by empowering the federal government with law enforcement powers which it should not have.
Or to fulfill what our most fundamental founding document says is the very purpose of all human government.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...
Without the obligation for the securing of unalienable rights there is no union, and therefore no true federalism is possible. All you have, at best, is a confederation of warring, bickering, unprincipled states, with no core set of principles that bind them.
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.