James Dobson: Pro-Life Cause May Have to Settle for Overturning Roe, Abortion

Life News ^ | 10/1/10 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Ask most pro-life Americans and they will tell the you the ultimate goal for the pro-life movement is a constitutional amendment recognizing the legal status of unborn children from conception. But former Focus on the Family president and founder James Dobson says that may not be attainable.

Before a constitutional amendment, either federally or in any state, can be recognized, the Supreme Court must be changed to remove its current pro-abortion majority -- pegged by most pro-life legal scholars as 5-4 at best.

Once that happens, the Supreme Court can reverse the infamous Roe v. Wade decision that allowed for virtually unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy for any reason and has resulted in more than 52 million abortions since 1973.

When the high court overturns Roe, states may be able to pass their own laws prohibiting abortions, and Dobson says that may have to be good enough for the pro-life movement because getting three-fourths of the states and Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment is an extraordinarily difficult process.

"I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

Dobson's comments also refer to the theory among some pro-life legal observers that the Supreme Court could find the necessary votes to overturn Roe -- throwing the abortion battle back to the states -- but not having enough votes to uphold a constitutional amendment.

The election of President Barack Obama set back the pro-life cause because it allowed him to replace retiring pro-abortion jurists, John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, with abortion advocates who will almost assuredly vote to keep Roe and unlimited abortions in place for decades to come.

The pro-life movement won't have the opportunity to replace a pro-abortion Supreme Court judge with the potential fifth vote to overturn Roe until at least 2013, assuming Obama is defeated by a pro-life presidential candidate in the next election.

Dobson, who made the comments, according to a OneNewsNow report, on the Today's Issues program on American Family Radio, also said he applauded pro-life groups and advancements such as better-quality ultrasounds for changing the face of public opinion.

"You can't deny it's a baby," Dobson says. "You see it sucking its thumb, moving and turning cartwheels in its mother's womb."

Recent polls have consistently shown a majority of Americans are both pro-life and strongly support limits such as no tax funding for abortions or parental involvement for teens.

[wagglebee]

For most of its history there was no general Federal law against murder. The penal code is left to the states to define and enforce.

However, no state ever tried to legalize murder.

[mlizzy]

Christ can take care of this in a baby-heartbeat. Although I like Dobson, I prefer Fr. John A. Hardon:

"Let me repeat in the clearest words in my disposal. I would restate our thesis in two propositions. Proposition #1 There is no stopping abortion without an ocean of grace from Jesus Christ. No way will human means stop abortion." #2 The principle source of this grace is the Holy Eucharist.

Link.

[devere]

“Have you even read the Constitution?”

Since you are eager to insult prospective members, it’s safe to say your new “conservative” political party has no future whatsoever.

I am opposed to the present practice of effectively amending the US constitution by Supreme Court decision, even if the decision is for something I favor. I am a conservative, and I’m not pretending.

[EternalVigilance]

That would be a start. From there you fight the issue in the individual state legislatures. The states. Where it should have stayed to begin with.

Other than the supreme right, the right to life, exactly which other unalienable rights do you want "the states to decide"?

Our rights come from our Creator, not any man.

In America, as an elected or appointed officer of government, the only "decision" to be made is whether or not you're going to fulfill the primary purpose of government as the founders of this free republic stated it: to secure the God-given and therefore unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.

The very use of the word "decide" in this context is a mark of someone who has either abandoned or forgotten America's foundational principles.

[EternalVigilance]

Every judge on the Supreme Court swore to defend the life of every innocent person.

Because they won’t, you want to throw out the basis for our form of government and liberty?

[EternalVigilance]

I am opposed to the present practice of effectively amending the US constitution by Supreme Court decision, even if the decision is for something I favor. I am a conservative, and I’m not pretending.

You obviously have no understanding of the Ninth Amendment, and have either abandoned or forgotten what this nation's founders said about the purpose of government.

[DManA]

True. Have faith in the people and the Holy Spirit that the battle in the 50 states can be won there. Every state has good people with the stomach to battle it.

The ever growing Federal criminal code is tremendous threat to our freedom. Without freedom we won’t be able to protect the unborn.

[EternalVigilance]

For most of its history there was no general Federal law against murder. The penal code is left to the states to define and enforce.

"No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

-- The United States Constitution, aka 'the supreme law of the land'

[DManA]

The State isn’t performing abortion (except where tax dollars support it). Private citizens are.

[DManA]

It is however an excellent argument to use against state subsidies for abortion providers.

[napscoordinator]

Absolutely and thank you for doing this. I would hope at least 30 states would have this law. I mean a guy who stabs a women in the stomach should get life in jail for sure if he kills the baby even if the mother survives. I know we won’t get 50 but the more states the better.

[DManA]

Good for you. It’s a shame that isn’t the default position of the state but there you have it.

The pro-aborts should be required to PROVE the unborn AREN’T persons. Be funny to listen to them trying to do it without condemning profoundly handicapped people to non-personhood. But then that’s probably coming too.

[EternalVigilance]

The more I look at this article the angrier I get.

"I would be willing to settle for each state making a decision, and we'll fight that out in the state legislatures in 50 states. I just don't see the Supreme Court saying this is flat-out illegal," he lamented. "I wish they would, but I don't think that will happen."

-- James Dobson

Jim Dobson's final surrender of unalienable right.

[EternalVigilance]

The State isn’t performing abortion (except where tax dollars support it). Private citizens are.

Guess you missed this part:

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Also, the Constitution guarantees that every state have a republican form of government. You cannot have a republican form of government, in the American sense, that does not protect the unalienable rights of the people. First, and most importantly, the right to life.

Claiming otherwise is to agree to the complete annihilation of the United States of America.

[rogue yam]

I agree with Dobson. Overturn Roe v. Wade and then outlaw abortion state-by-state. This allows the GOP to take a big-tent approach with limited-government principles front-and-center. Once abortion is illegal in a majority of the States, then we can start talking realistically about a pro-life amendment. Step one is to rein in the judiciary. This will benefit freedom and life across the board, and will create a conservative-libertarian fusion majority.

[wagglebee]

As I've said before, what needs to happen is the "right" case to be brought before the Supreme Court.

The "right" case would likely be a challenge to a state's personhood amendment. As long as the amendment states that personhood begins at conception and ends with natural death, the Court could uphold it as a landmark decision.

[wagglebee]

I agree with Dobson. Overturn Roe v. Wade and then outlaw abortion state-by-state.

Do you believe that the individual states can legalize murder?

This allows the GOP to take a big-tent approach with limited-government principles front-and-center.

The "big tent" is what destroyed the GOP and "limited government" DOES NOT include the government abrogating its Constitutional obligations.

This will benefit freedom and life across the board, and will create a conservative-libertarian fusion majority.

The LAST thing conservatives need is libertarians.

[DManA]

...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And when the States are allowed to pass laws on abortion again the Constitution will protect everyone access to the law’s protection. My only point is that law needs to be passed by the State legislature. That is the American system.

[devere]

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

“First among the Blessings of Liberty is life, for without it, NONE of the other Blessings are viable.”

You remind me of Justice William O. Douglas, who justified the Griswold decision based on the “penumbras” and “emanations” of the constitution.

No the Supreme Court is not meant to be a super-legislature, with whoever controls 5 votes rewriting the constitution at their whim. As a conservative I am opposed to that, and whoever is not opposed I call a Liberal.

[EternalVigilance]

My only point is that law needs to be passed by the State legislature. That is the American system.

It isn't just the job of state legislatures to protect the rights of all the people. It is the job of every branch of government, at every level.