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]

Which other unalienable rights do you want the states to be able to alienate if they see fit?

The thought process of the libertarians is every bit as dangerous as that of the Marxists.

[narses]

Patton@Bastogne wrote:

As a Constitutionalist (read: Non-Sharia Law) ... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ...

... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ... ... Slavery is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ??? ... Civil Rights is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ???

What say YOU?

[wagglebee]

... Abortion is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ... ... Slavery is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ??? ... Civil Rights is properly settled on a state-by-state basis ???

If we carry this logic out, a state should be allowed to legalize slavery, murder, rape, arson and whatever else the libertarians demand.

[EternalVigilance]

It is. And I’m done pulling punches about it. They’re doing more real damage than those who admit to being Leftists could ever dream of doing.

[xzins]

I think that Dobson is getting older, and he probably was speaking of his lifetime. I realize that's it's unwise to speak only from one's own perspective, but I've listened to him on the radio before, and he has a conversational approach that lends itself to that.

from the article: "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 above is the reason that the divided conservative community was so misguided when we allowed moderate John McCain to sneak into the nomination at the last election. His non-campaign, unwillingness to engage Obama, inability to engage Obama, and the terrible backstabbing against his VP running mate have all resulted in decades of hard work going to waste.

Conservatism was on the brink of replacing Scotus justices from the liberal side with those who were more constitutional in their approach.

And we failed. Whether manipulated or finessed really isn't significant. We were so close, and we let it slip away.

[wagglebee]

It is. And I’m done pulling punches about it. They’re doing more real damage than those who admit to being Leftists could ever dream of doing.

Yep, at least the left admits they are our enemy, the libertarians are nothing more that Benedict Arnolds lying in wait.

[markomalley]

Please clarify, are you suggesting that a nationwide abortion ban would be the equivalent of Sharia law?

Let me take a stab at this. First of all the use of Sharia law is not really appropriate.

But a federal ban is also not appropriate either. The little nasty thing about the 10th Amendment gets in the way.

The problem is not a state-by-state ban, though. The problem is the definition of a human being that is accepted by the judiciary...and who does or does not get Constitutional protections.

The scientific way of looking at a human life can draw one conclusion: a distinct human life must be defined as one with distinct human DNA.

If that definition can somehow be enshrined, be it through a Constitutional Amendment or through some other method, then existing homicide laws would apply.

• The intentional taking of a human life with premeditation and malice of forethought is Murder 1.
• The intentional taking of a human life without premeditation but with malice of forethought is Murder 2.
• And so on.

Therefore, an abortionist who intentionally takes a baby's life should be guilty of murder. As should the mother who signs a contract for killing with the abortionist. The premeditation and mental states might mitigate it, but one way or the other, it is a homicide.

And if a state does not prosecute contract killings of pre-born children with the same vigor that they prosecute other homicides, then they have, in effect, violated the civil rights of all unborn and are no better than officials who would not bother going after murderers of blacks.

Too severe? Well, any other attitude is indicative of a person who doesn't really believe that the baby is a real life that is worth protecting.

[EternalVigilance]

But a federal ban is also not appropriate either. The little nasty thing about the 10th Amendment gets in the way.

The Constitution already bans the killing of innocent persons. Repeatedly.

In no way does the Tenth Amendment leave room for unalienable rights to be alienated. You're completely misreading/misinterpreting it if you think it does.

The Tenth Amendment concerns reservations of power to those to whom it rightfully, constitutionally, belongs.

The Right to Life comes from God, not from any man. Neither men nor States have any rightful power in this area, unless someone commits a capital offense and they are charged, tried, and convicted on that offense.

And, each and every officer of government, at every level, and in every branch, swore an oath before God and his countrymen to protect those rights.

They can't take innocent lives, and they have a sworn obligation to protect each and every innocent life.

[annalex]

every argument in this thread could be used for the rights of the mother

So? Who denies the mother any right? Killing another human being is not her right to begin with. In the rare circumstance that her life is in grave danger the doctor has two patients: the mother and the baby. He can act according to the rules of medical triage, and none of that has anything to do with abortion, no matter the outcome.

[markomalley]

The Constitution already bans the killing of innocent persons. Repeatedly.

The key point is that the SCOTUS has created a definition out of whole cloth that denies babies the dignity of being considered a "person" for the purpose of the law. That is what needs to change.

As for Constitutional protections, if you read carefully, those Constitutional protections are against the government taking a life without due process, etc.

For example, Amendment 5: No person shall be…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

Amendment 14: …nor shall any state 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.…

And so on...

[annalex]

I hope he misspoke and I wish he would not use the word “settle”. Of course America cannot count itself free and civilized until such day that every abortion is against the law in every jurisdiction, just like any other murder.

That some steps out of barbarity are easier to take is something hard to dispute. But I am not even convinced that overturning Row v. Wade will be chronologically the first victory. It is possible that the culture of death will be defeated without regard to what is legal. When a legal system is discredited in the minds of most citizens, — and the juridical agenda of the left will discredit whatever remains of our legal system, — people simply do what is right and try not to get caught. One day people who do or advocate for abortion will be social pariahs, no matter how many laws are written to protect them.

[EternalVigilance]

The key point is that the SCOTUS has created a definition out of whole cloth that denies babies the dignity of being considered a "person" for the purpose of the law. That is what needs to change.

When one officer of government breaches his oath of office that does not provide a legitimate excuse for any other officer of government to breach their own oath.

The only way things will change is if everyone drops this insane, destructive notion that the courts are supreme. They're not. God is supreme. The people are sovereign under God. And the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the people's instrument of governance. Following it is not optional, for any officer, or any branch, at any level.

If a judge violates the Constitution, claims jurisdiction that he does not possess - such as the power to amend constitutions or to make law - or in any way expresses opinions that in any manner abrogate the primary purpose of government, which is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, they must be impeached, post haste. THAT must be the new standard.

[markomalley]

When one officer of government breaches his oath of office that does not provide a legitimate excuse for any other officer of government to breach their own oath.

Minor trouble with that theory. OK, let's say that President John Doe signs an executive order that defines personhood as beginning at the point of fertilization. And he directs the FBI to raid every abortuary in the country and bring the staffs and all clients up on federal Murder 1 charges.

I would like to see that result. But what would happen?

First, in which branch of the federal government will the trial happen? The executive? Nope. The Judicial (remember them?...the ones who said that a baby is not a person until outside of the mother's womb)

So what do you think will happen to the people who the Fibbies arrested...yup, the courts will order them released.

But what happens if the President (remember...President Doe) orders them to be held regardless of what the courts say?

And you can see how it will go from there.

If a judge violates the Constitution, claims jurisdiction that he does not possess - such as the power to amend constitutions or to make law - or in any way expresses opinions that in any manner abrogate the primary purpose of government, which is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, they must be impeached, post haste. THAT must be the new standard.

On that part, we are in 100% agreement. Judges shall hold their offices during good behaviour. Unfortunately, we have yet to see a Congress in modern times who take their sole power of impeachment responsibility seriously when it comes to the Judicial branch. "Good behaviour" is a very nebulous term...it could talk about not breaking the law, but it could easily talk about not upholding their oath of office. And it would be nice to see them do as you said.

[sitetest]

Dear wagglebee,

It's a relay race. It may be that those who work - and succeed - to get Roe overturned will then hand over the baton to those who will ultimately pass a Human Life Amendment.

Even Moses didn't quite get to the Promised Land.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

And you can see how it will go from there.

Yep. So, Congress needs to impeach any judge who would be so foolish. And this heroic chief executive of which you speak must have the courage of his convictions.

Those who enable abortion are in fact lawless. Their actions are a literal act of insurrection: against God - see Genesis chapter nine - against the natural law, against the cornerstone principles of our nation's charter, the Declaration of Independence, against the self-stated purposes of our Constitution, in every one of its clauses, against that document's specific provisions as spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in later amendments, against the explicit provisions of the constitutions of all of the states, and finally, against the God-given unalienable rights of every single individual person affected by it.

It's a horror. It's a travesty. It's a holocaust equal to those perpetrated by the worst despots of history.

And it has happened in America.

America cannot be saved unless we return to the principles upon which our free republic was founded:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


A Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment would be great ...

But the REALITY is that it's NOT going to happen on this planet ... anytime soon ...

So what's the next best solution ?

Each state (individually) outlawing-curtailing abortion as much as possible ...

The REALITY is that we Americans will ALWAYS have pockets like New York (et al) that will want to murder babies ...

But outlawing abortion in 47-48 out of 50 states (one at a time) is a pretty good deal ...

It's certainly BETTER than the Roe vs. Wade debacle we struggle under today ...


.
.

[Patton@Bastogne]

.


A Pro-Life Constitutional Amendment would be great ...

But the REALITY is that it's NOT going to happen on this planet ... anytime soon ...

So what's the next best solution ?

Each state (individually) outlawing-curtailing abortion as much as possible ...

The REALITY is that we Americans will ALWAYS have pockets like New York (et al) that will want to murder babies ...

But outlawing abortion in 47-48 out of 50 states (one at a time) is a pretty good deal ...

It's certainly BETTER than the Roe vs. Wade debacle we struggle under today ...



A "gentle" suggestion : The Pro-Life community needs to (politically) grow-up and STOP acting like a bunch of RON PAUL "single-issue" cry babies ....


.

[Lesforlife]

“The care of human life and happiness and not their destruction, is the chief and only legitimate object of good government” Thomas Jefferson

[Lesforlife]

With the consultation of Dr. Dianne Irving, PhD who teaches
embryology at Georgetown, our language uses the universally
accepted term, the beginning of biological development,
as the starting point for human life. In 1965, the American
College of Obstetrics and Gynecology redefined conception to mean implantation in order to market the pill.

Even the term fertilization didn’t cover asexual reproduction.

This was the crux of our law suit challenging the Blue Book for Colorado Voters. We make the case that the CO taxpayer shouldn’t be forced
by the state to produce a voter guide which lies to the voters!

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5837

[Lesforlife]

You sound like politician, Ken Buck running for US Senate in CO.
He claims he supports Personhood, he just doesn’t support
Personhood amendments, like the lame Eagle Forum.

Talk about Orwellian Doublespeak!