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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
Also, FTA:

Fortunately, there exists a simpler, more practical strategy to protect life (and other things we cherish), provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This section allows Congress to strip the Supreme Court of any cases (e.g., abortion cases) where the Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction. Congress can also limit the jurisdiction of any lower federal courts, since Congress created those courts. Congress could make Roe v. Wade a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws.

This remedy has already been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the new (111th) Congress as H.R. 539, the “We the People Act.” H.R. 539 would remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts from cases related to the free exercise or establishment of religion; the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction (e.g., abortion); the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation (same-sex marriage).

The legislation would also prohibit the federal courts from relying on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in the above list. In other words, it would remove Roe v. Wade and similar decisions from judicial precedent.


1 posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:49 PM PST by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

U.S. House of Representatives, 111th Congress, First Session: H.R. 539, To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes
2 posted on 01/24/2009 8:45:54 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Hmmm ... 50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!

Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!


3 posted on 01/24/2009 8:47:30 PM PST by gwilhelm56 (Mullah Hussein ... which part of "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW" ...did you NOT UNDERSTAND??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bamahead; Gondring; djsherin; murphE; Bokababe

Of course, we all know that Ron Paul is just another “fringe kook”! /sarc


4 posted on 01/24/2009 8:47:55 PM PST by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Not this insane radical left congress..........


5 posted on 01/24/2009 8:50:38 PM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The author of this piece apparently hasn’t heard of the results of the last election.

Not only will new restrictions on abortion not be put in place, but the present minimal restrictions will be wiped away.

It is likely that taxpayer funding for abortions will expand.

IOW, the train is headed in the opposite direction.


6 posted on 01/24/2009 8:59:18 PM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The Constitution... what’s that?


7 posted on 01/24/2009 9:02:08 PM PST by djsherin (The federal government:: Because someone has to f*** things up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

The only positive out of this election (besides no more McCain) is that Obama was pretty shy about the abortion issue and actually it was rarely brought up...and tried at least flaunted some of his pro-life supporters. Not to mention, the appointment of Ray Lahood in the cabinet. I remember in 92 the Dems were trying to outdo each other on the issue. Not to mention, Clinton had a pro-abortion litmus test for his cabinet. It gives a glimmer of hope that at least public opinion is turning.


8 posted on 01/24/2009 9:07:25 PM PST by Fast Ed97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Excellent idea: HR 539. I shall write supportive letters to my political leaders and follow its progress.


9 posted on 01/24/2009 9:14:09 PM PST by Falconspeed ("Keep your fears to yourself, but share your courage with others." Robert Louis Stevenson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
or, the Supremes could decide WHEN life begins ( which they refused to do in Roe v. Wade )that life begins at conception.

or

Individual states could decree that life begins at conception.

10 posted on 01/24/2009 9:18:06 PM PST by stylin19a (I listen to the voices in my golf bag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

I agree w/ this - I would assume this means it gets passed down to the states/local govts. for a vote so it is state by state and more federalist? If that is the case - love her or hate her, that’s why I was a fan of Gov. Palin because she kept saying she wanted states to have more control and less govt. intervention. Nobody and No law is perfect but this article is my ideal for how govt. should be run.


11 posted on 01/24/2009 9:21:30 PM PST by Lilpug15 ("I Call Him the Forgotten Man - He works, He votes, He generally prays - but He Always Pays": Sumner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“another federal solution ...”

Ummmm, don’t they mean “another FINAL solution ...”


12 posted on 01/24/2009 9:23:15 PM PST by deannadurbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fast Ed97

If Obama has one pro-life member of his cabinet, or high-ranking in his administration, let me know and I’ll believe he doesn’t have a pro-choice litmus test. He said he has one for judges. He’s against the Born Alive Protection act, he’s for FOCA and wants it to be one of his first acts, he’s reversed Bush’s order banning funds to agencies performing abortions abroad, he’s restarted funding for embryonic stemcell research, he’s removed some of the protection for medical personnel declining to participate in abortions and FOCA will take that further.

Obama’s propaganda glamour machine will be called in to go to work on public opinion regarding abortion. I am not optimistic.


13 posted on 01/24/2009 9:24:39 PM PST by heartwood (Tarheel in exile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; EternalVigilance
Of course, we all know that Ron Paul is just another “fringe kook”!

I know you're being sarcastic, but the Ron Paul hatred was so intense prior to the primaries here that there were some FReepers accusing him of being pro-abortion just because Paul didn't support a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.

I'm all for a constitutional amendment, but in the short term I would rather see R v W overturned and states deal with abortion. Of course, Eternal Vigilance will vehemently disagree with me.

14 posted on 01/24/2009 9:26:52 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (The Libertarian and Constitution Parties should merge into one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

BTTT


15 posted on 01/24/2009 10:17:39 PM PST by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

“50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!

Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!”

Killing innocents trumps their social programs, I guess. Sad.


16 posted on 01/24/2009 10:23:44 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Don’t forget the shortages of healthcare workers, etc. Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing. It’s almost assured there were genius innovators in there (not that it makes the other lives less valuable, just giving a concrete example of the loss).


17 posted on 01/24/2009 10:42:02 PM PST by MoTiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MoTiger

“Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing.”

Good point. And one of them might have had the cure for heart disease, and another for cancer.


18 posted on 01/24/2009 10:58:17 PM PST by Sun (Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception.

It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.

I asked a woman who was pro choice to prove to me that the babies that were being killed were not humans, and of course she could not. She tried to change the subject to viability, and I told her I was not interested in viability, only whether or not the baby was a human.

She tried to use the common liberal BS, and I called her on everyone of her illogical points. Then of course she got mad. I told her that I pray for every woman who has had an abortion. She asked me why would I pray for them. I replied that I would not want to meet GOD if I had killed one of his children. She turned white, and I asked her if she had an abortion. She said yes.

I told her to repent,and to seek GOD’s forgiveness, and to save as many children as possible from being aborted. I do not know if she has repented. Pray for her.

I know that when we meet the MAKER we will feel the suffering and pain that we caused in this world as part of our judgment. I would not want to feel the pain and suffering of these poor defenseless children that are being killed.

GOD save us.


19 posted on 01/24/2009 11:28:44 PM PST by Do the math (Doug)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Article underscores the facts forgotten in recent years. "Abortion rights" advocates were not gaining ground in the US until the activism of SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. I can't speak from memory of all the different state laws, but in California, abortion was always illegal except in the cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was endangered by giving birth.

The question of citizenship/personhood in the law is traditionally reserved to the individual states as intended by the framers. These matters are best addressed on the state level. This is why I have always supported federalist candidates and will continue to do so.

20 posted on 01/24/2009 11:31:46 PM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 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