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

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade
The New American ^ | 2009-01-23 | Warren Mass

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: 111th; abortion; congress; courts; jbs; lping; moralabsolutes; paulistinians; prolife; ronpaul; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last
To: Philo-Junius; MamaTexan

***...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.


81 posted on 01/25/2009 8:19:36 PM PST by djsherin (The federal government:: Because someone has to f*** things up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

***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?


82 posted on 01/25/2009 8:21:52 PM PST by djsherin (The federal government:: Because someone has to f*** things up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

The act of secession itself may have been invalid; withdrawing from Congress was not.


83 posted on 01/25/2009 8:26:27 PM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

What is withdrawing from Congress if not an act of secession?


84 posted on 01/25/2009 8:37:39 PM PST by djsherin (The federal government:: Because someone has to f*** things up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Ron Paul has been the most conservative, and pro-life congressman we have.

That’s why the kooks hate him.


85 posted on 01/25/2009 8:43:22 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Bump for later...


86 posted on 01/25/2009 9:13:50 PM PST by dcwusmc (We need to make government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: djsherin

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.


87 posted on 01/25/2009 10:08:39 PM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
And what of those who absorb a twin in the womb...manslaughter charges?
Actually, they would be two people sharing the same body.

Of course, think of what this would imply about marriage laws. If a woman had absorbed her twin, does this mean her husband is a bigamist? Or is her husband simply married to the twin who owns what is down there?
88 posted on 01/26/2009 10:02:15 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
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?
89 posted on 01/26/2009 10:04:08 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

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.


90 posted on 01/26/2009 10:05:36 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

It would have had to have been considered at least manslaughter under equal protection.


91 posted on 01/26/2009 10:11:31 AM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

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.


92 posted on 01/26/2009 10:15:12 AM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

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.


93 posted on 01/26/2009 10:22:28 AM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
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?
94 posted on 01/26/2009 10:43:20 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
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?
95 posted on 01/26/2009 10:44:42 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

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.


96 posted on 01/26/2009 11:45:33 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: dbz77

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.


97 posted on 01/26/2009 3:18:42 PM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“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.


98 posted on 01/26/2009 6:50:20 PM PST by SecAmndmt (Arm yourselves!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt
You're claiming that a government doesn't have the power to fulfill the sworn oaths of its officers.

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...

99 posted on 01/26/2009 6:55:05 PM PST by EternalVigilance (God is watching and listening.)(The Personhood Imperative: www.BanAbortionNOW.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: SecAmndmt

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.


100 posted on 01/26/2009 6:58:53 PM PST by EternalVigilance (God is watching and listening.)(The Personhood Imperative: www.BanAbortionNOW.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-113 next last

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.

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