Breaking: House passes nationwide 20-week ban on abortion (includes full roll call vote)

Life Site News ^ | June 18, 2013 | BEN JOHNSON

[NYer]

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The House of Representatives has passed a bill that would restrict all abortions nationwide to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” (H.R. 1797), introduced by Arizona Republica Trent Franks, would end abortion after a point that scientists agree unborn children can feel pain.

In a nearly party-line vote, the measure passed 228-196.

Six Democrats voted yes. Six Republicans voted against the bill. Ten Congressmen did not vote. The full roll call, showing how every Congressman voted, is below.

Democrats who voted yes include: Henry Cuellar of Texas, Dan Lipinski of Illinois, Jim Matheson of Utah, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina, Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and Nick Rahall of West Virginia.

Republicans who voted against the bill include Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Richard Hanna of New York, Jon Runyan of New Jersey, and Rob Woodall of Georgia.

"Passage of today's landmark bill marks the first time in history, in either chamber of the U.S. Congress, that affirmative protection has been extended to unborn children,” said Franks. “It is my prayer that today also marks a day when America finally opens her eyes to the humanity of these little victims and the inhumanity of what is being done to them."

Others in the pro-lifemovement expressed their joy at the bill's passage.

“This vote makes a statement in favor of life even though the Dem[ocrat]-controlled Senate likely won't move on it,” said Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue. “Getting this far was a big deal.”

The act's future is uncertain, as it lacks a companion in the Senate, and President Obama has threatened to veto it if the measure ever reaches his desk.

If the bill becomes law, abortionists who perform late-term abortions may face a fine or up to five years in prison.

The legislation would affect the 300 abortionists who perform abortions after 20 weeks post-fertilization and an estimated 140 abortion providers who are willing to perform abortions at 24 weeks or later, according to a 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute.

Some in the pro-life movement were outraged after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia added amendment allowing abortion in the cases of duly reported rape or incest, a change he made bowing to a media feeding frenzy over Franks' remarks about abortion and rape – remarks he says were misinterpreted.

The bill already allowed abortions to save the mother's life.

Georgia Right to Life rescinded its previous support of the bill, saying it had been “hijacked.”

“Sadly, the politics of compromise has decided that one class of children—those conceived by rape or incest—do not deserve protection from the agony of literally being ripped apart.,” said GRTL President Dan Becker.

Georgia Congressmen Paul Broun and Rob Woodall were two of the six Republicans to vote nay.

Most of the nation's pro-life groups strongly supported the incremental measure as an improvement over existing policy. Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, "Any lawmaker who votes to allow unlimited abortion in the sixth month or later is voting to encourage a continuation of the horrors associated with the likes of Kermit Gosnell."

Cantor also scheduled Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-TN, to manage today's vote instead of Franks – something Democrats seized upon during the debate.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, who has strong ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, was among those who drew attention to the fact that there are no Republican women on the House Judiciary Committee, which passed the bill last Wednesday.

“Do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body?” she asked.

Democrats appeared eager to change the subject from the bill's purpose – ending the practice of late-term abortions that led to the abuses of Kermit Gosnell and others – to their familiar “War on Women” rhetoric.

President Obama issued a statement yesterday saying he“strongly opposes” the bill, which he said presents a “direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and shows contempt for women's health and rights, the role doctors play in their patients' health care decisions, and the Constitution.”

Democrats shared his talking points in the hours prior to the vote.

“The bill is a direct threat to the privacy rights and health of every woman living in this country, and especially women of color,” said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA. She said minority members suffered even more “due to the terrible Hyde Amendment,” which forbids taxpayer funding of abortion.

Lee was the only member of Congress who did not vote to authorize force against the Taliban following 9/11.  

The full roll call vote is as follows:

---- YEAS 228 ---

Aderholt Alexander Amash Amodei Bachmann Bachus Barletta Barr Barton Benishek Bentivolio Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Black Blackburn Boustany Brady (TX) Bridenstine Brooks (AL) Brooks (IN) Buchanan Bucshon Burgess Calvert Camp Cantor Capito Carter Cassidy Chabot Chaffetz Coble Coffman Cole Collins (GA) Collins (NY) Conaway Cook Cotton Cramer Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Culberson Daines Davis, Rodney Denham DeSantis DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Duffy Duncan (SC) Duncan (TN) Ellmers Farenthold Fincher Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fleming Flores Forbes Fortenberry Foxx Franks (AZ) Gardner Garrett Gerlach Gibbs Gibson Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Gosar Gowdy Granger Graves (GA)

Graves (MO) Griffin (AR) Griffith (VA) Grimm Guthrie Hall Harper Harris Hartzler Hastings (WA) Heck (NV) Hensarling Herrera Beutler Holding Hudson Huelskamp Huizenga (MI) Hultgren Hurt Issa Jenkins Johnson (OH) Johnson, Sam Jones Jordan Joyce Kelly (PA) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kinzinger (IL) Kline Labrador LaMalfa Lamborn Lance Lankford Latham Latta Lipinski LoBiondo Long Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Marchant Marino Massie Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McHenry McIntyre McKeon McKinley McMorris Rodgers Meadows Meehan Messer Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary Mullin Mulvaney Murphy (PA) Neugebauer Noem Nugent Nunes Nunnelee Olson Palazzo Paulsen Pearce

Perry Peterson Petri Pittenger Pitts Poe (TX) Pompeo Posey Price (GA) Radel Rahall Reed Reichert Renacci Ribble Rice (SC) Rigell Roby Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rokita Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Rothfus Royce Ryan (WI) Salmon Sanford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sensenbrenner Sessions Shimkus Shuster Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Southerland Stewart Stivers Stockman Stutzman Terry Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiberi Tipton Turner Upton Valadao Wagner Walberg Walden Walorski Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westmoreland Whitfield Williams Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Womack Yoder Yoho Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (IN)

 

---- NAYS 196 ---

 

Andrews Barber Barrow (GA) Bass Beatty Becerra Bera (CA) Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Bonamici Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Broun (GA) Brown (FL) Brownley (CA) Bustos Butterfield Capps Capuano Cárdenas Carney Carson (IN) Cartwright Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Conyers Cooper Costa Courtney Crowley Cummings Davis (CA) Davis, Danny DeFazio DeGette Delaney DeLauro DelBene Dent Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle Duckworth Edwards Ellison Engel Enyart Eshoo Esty Farr Fattah Foster Frankel (FL) Frelinghuysen Fudge Gabbard

Gallego Garamendi Garcia Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene Grijalva Gutierrez Hahn Hanabusa Hanna Hastings (FL) Heck (WA) Higgins Himes Hinojosa Holt Honda Horsford Hoyer Huffman Israel Jackson Lee Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Kildee Kilmer Kind Kirkpatrick Kuster Langevin Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lewis Loebsack Lofgren Lowenthal Lowey Lujan Grisham (NM) Luján, Ben Ray (NM) Lynch Maffei Maloney, Carolyn Maloney, Sean Matsui McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Michaud Miller, George Moore Moran Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Negrete McLeod

Nolan O'Rourke Owens Pallone Pastor (AZ) Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Peters (CA) Peters (MI) Pingree (ME) Pocan Polis Price (NC) Quigley Rangel Richmond Roybal-Allard Ruiz Runyan Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schwartz Scott (VA) Scott, David Serrano Sewell (AL) Shea-Porter Sherman Sinema Sires Slaughter Smith (WA) Speier Swalwell (CA) Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Titus Tonko Tsongas Van Hollen Vargas Veasey Vela Velázquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters Watt Waxman Welch Wilson (FL) Woodall

 

---- NOT VOTING    10 ---

 

Bonner Campbell Hunter Larsen (WA)

Markey McCarthy (NY) Pascrell Rogers (KY)

Schock Yarmuth

[campaignPete R-CT]

what we do in CT is defeat NARAL guys and then after the election ... we sit down with A.L.L. folks and show them which candidates were pro-life and which were NARAL and then they tell us how many offices they voted ‘blank’.

“Unless I know for sure somebody is pro-life, I leave it blank”
“I don’t vote in primaries.” yeah, the A.L.L. crowd in CT is really on top of things.

We just defeated a NARAL guy last week in eastern CT special election. A.L.L. found out about the election the next day when they read about our victory in the morning paper. Sounds like a boycott, to me, eh?

[Wanderer99]

They’d stab a 10 year old to death if only we let them get away with it...and sometimes we do....

[Clump]

Congress has authority under the Section 1 of the14th Amendment to declare that unborn children are persons, and are therefore subject to the equal protection of the laws. Section 5 authorizes it to pass legislation and enforce it to carry out said purpose.

There is your constitutional coat rack so to speak.

[Amendment10]

Congress has authority under the Section 1 of the14th Amendment to declare that unborn children are persons,

Below is Section 1 of 14A. Will you please point out the exact wording in Section 1 that you believe substantiates your assertion about Congress officially declaring that unborn children are persons?

14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

Note that when Sen. Rand Paul references 14A when he talks about making a federal law defining life beginning at conception, he always ignores the Section 1 part about being born.

Regarding the part about being born, also note that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1, probably didn't foresee problems with the wording of Section 1 and abortion. After all, our pioneering ancesters deliberately had large families because not all children could be expected to live to adulthood.

[Clump]

“Nor shall any state deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection the equal protection of the laws.”

I didn’t say that the 14th Amendment defines “persons” specifically to include unborn children. What I am saying is that Congress could make a finding that unborn children are indeed persons under our Constitution and that the Equal Protection Clause applies to them.

There have been many laws passed pursuant to Section 5 to effectuate the purposes in the 14th Amendment. Usually said laws were to address or correct states with histories or then existing practices of denying voting rights or other fundamental rights to classes if citizens deemed unworthy of equal protection.

My position is that it is perfectly reasonable for Congress to find that all persons (born and unborn) enjoy the the right to life and the equal protection of the laws (prohibition on murder applied equally), and no state may deprive them of such without due process of law.

From a Constitutional perspective I think this fits much better than a flawed commerce clause jurisprudence (Wickard v. Filburn 1942) that was reigned in to some degree beginning with US v. Lopez 1995.

I am a very strong advocate of the 10th Amendment and extremely limited (based on enumerated powers and limited use of the 14th Amendment) Federal government, but I don’t think the right of human beings to live absent due process should be left to the states to deprive as they see fit.

As a practical matter I could envision the Supreme Court leaving it to the states since the right to abortion is clearly not mentioned in the Constitution. I don’t see them doing a 180 and declaring that states may not allow abortion. It is interesting to note however that in Roe the Court said that if an unborn child is indeed a “person” under the Constitution then their holding would fall apart (my paraphrase).
This appears to be the route to go for state legislators from my standpoint.

[BlackElk]

Amendment10:

Personhood and citizenship are two very different categories. All citizens are persons. Not all persons are citizens but all persons present in any state are entitled to equal protection of the laws.

If an "illegal" alien is peacefully going about his business in, say Louisiana or Texas, he may be arrested for illegal presence in this country (as might any non-citizen illegally present here) but he may not be deprived by any state of the equal protection of the laws. Would Louisiana or Texas eagerly protect the lives, liberty and property of its own citizens? Then the same treatment is owed constitutionally to the "illegal" alien present in such state.

By obvious analogy, the unborn may be regarded as persons (if not yet citizens) and must be protected. Herod Blackmun may well have disagreed with the personhood status of the unborn as would Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Kennedy and a supporting horde of eager baby-killing toady magistrates (federal, state and local) from coast to coast and border to border. Then again, Congress, in enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment may disagree with those federal judges and yank their jurisdictional ability to continue the American Holocaust as is a specific constitutional power entrusted to the Congress by the Constitutional Convention's work as ratified by the states.

Now, it is also true that the Senate will not join in and neither will the Hawaiian/Illinois (inter alia) AntiChrist who is POTUS and who managed to ask God's blessings on the Planned Barrenhood abortion mills and its baby-killing industry.

OTOH, Great Britain's MP William Wilberforce never relented for a moment in his long Parliamentary career in his crusade to end slavery in Great Britain, regardless of the odds. As he was dying, Parliament granted his wish and abolished slavery.

Campaign Pete R-CT:

Judy Brown is no Wilberforce but she is also no moron. She never relents in staking out the position with which we should all eagerly agree. Someone has to do that to hold our standard high and to remind us of what we are seeking to accomplish which is complete abolition.

Some of us may take a more practical tack and stop as many abortions as we can. Ban partial birth abortions and come back for more. Then ban third trimester abortions and come back for more. Then go after second trimester abortions and come back for more. First trimester surgical abortions, IUDs, morning after pills, etc., etc., etc. and come back for more until abortion is no longer tolerated by law, by popular standards and by public opinion and consensus and until the abortion lovers are shunned and relegated to the status of the moral pariahs and untouchables that they are. . Meanwhile, we must also continue an educational effort to ever keep before the public eye the specific facts and nature of abortion to facilitate its abolition.

The Judie Browns have the high ground but there is room for the efforts of those inclined to a more gradual approach as well. In the process, we should never disrespect the Judie Browns or grant any acceptance whatsoever to any abortion, not even one. It is one thing to take what you can when the votes are not there to do more but we have no moral authority to accept even one abortion as an acceptable trade-off. The life destroyed would not be ours to give, but that of the baby who has a right to live.

To all:

Finally, I have no standing to speak for other faiths, but Catholics well understand that we cannot accept any abortion. The Joseph Bidens and various Kennedys of the Hyannisport crime family, and the Nancy Pelosis, and Rosa DeLauros and John Kerrys, and that Sebelius creature and so many others in public life who claim Catholicism while perpetuating the American Holocaust need splashy public excommunication.

We actual Catholics, in very rare instances, apply a moral principle of double effect that recognizes the ending of, for example, a tubal pregnancy, as the only moral choice since the child will surely die in any event (given current technology) and the action is to save the only life savable, that of the mother, at the cost of the tube. If and when the technology changes, every effort should be made to save the unborn as well but that appears not yet possible at this time.

In any event, the text of the Constitution's 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause fully empowers Congress to protect all human persons. The natural law requires that protection. The Tenth Amendment, to the extent that the Fourteenth Amendment disagrees with it, is superseded by the Fourteenth and it is. And Judie Brown may advance the pro-life agenda more strictly that many pro-lifers find comfortable but she is no moron, nor are those who agree with her morons.

P.S.: To Campaign Pete R-Ct Pete, you and I are well-acquainted. I trust that you will concede that a) I am not a moron (nor are you); and b) that I spent a lot of time and effort, politically (as have you) and as an attorney, advancing the pro-life agenda.

[BlackElk]

I thoroughly agree. See also #66.

[Hyman Roth]

Is that the Jon Runyan that used to play football for the Eagles?

[1010RD]

Though the bill will go nowhere in the Senate, this is ironic:

“Do you think it's fair or proper for a body of men to solely determine one of the most important and private decisions a woman can make in regard to her own health and body?” she [Rep. Jan Schakowsky D-IL] asked.

Is it fair or proper for a woman to kill the baby without the dad having a say so?

[AuH2ORepublican]

If Iowa somehow nanaged (despite itts Democrat Senate) to pass a law that banned abortion from the moment of conception (which we both agree is the only just law possible), it would be struck down by the courts and we’d be back to the status quo ante. We need to pass a law that will be upheld by 5 SCOTUS Justices and will chip away at Roe v. Wade. Trent Frank’s bill, which prohibits abortion even prior to viability and which does not have an exception for the “health of the mother” (a clause that makes abortion laws generally ineffectual because a woman can always get a letter from a doctor saying that having a baby would damage her “mental health”), would be, if upheld by SCOTUS, a HUGE step towards ending abortion in America.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Yes.

[AuH2ORepublican]

True, Wilberforce never gave up, and Britain eventually banned slavery (the final vote came right after he died). But earlier on, when Wilberforce knew that a total ban on slavery wasn’t possible, he not only did not try to block a bill to end the slave trade, he supported it and got it to pass in Parliament. We can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Father Frank Pavone (longtime leader of Priests fir Life) has written that we must act based on the choices before us, and if there is an election between a pro-abortion candidate and one who would ban some abortions but does not agree with us that abortion should always be prohibited (except incidentally and unintentially when the true aim is to save the life of the mother), we should support that imperfectly pro-life candidate, and that our act would be not for “the lesser of two evils,” but to reduce evil, so it is an affirmative act for good. By the same measure, the options for Congress are to (i) do nothing (which keeps abortion legal until birth), (ii) pass a lbill that would give us everything we want but that even if it were to become law would be struck down by SCOTUS and thus would not ban a single abortion and would help cenent Roe v. Wade, or (iii) pass a bill that, if it became law, would have a good chance of being upheld by SCOTUS and thus would ban many abortions, chip away at Roe and help move the courts towards eventually overturning Roe altogether. I’m heartened to see that all but three pro-lifers in the House voted the right way yesterday.

[EternalVigilance]

Except that it doesn’t actually work that way in the long run. Because, your approach, the NRTL approach, the “pro-life” “Republican” approach, surrenders the core, indispensable principle of equal protection under the law, right up right, assuring your continued defeat. We now have forty years of 20-20 hindsight, of harsh political and legal experience, to prove it.

How can a soldier who has stripped himself buck naked and thrown away all of his weapons and all of his ammo be believed when he tells you he is going to fight and defeat the enemy?

To hell with the Supreme Court. To hell with all the courts, if they won’t keep the first obligation of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable rights of the individual. If they don’t agree with the cornerstone principles of the republic, impeach and remove them. If they ignore every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, all of which are obscenely violated by the practice of human abortion, throw them out.

“Chip away at Roe”? What does that even mean? Roe is a forty year old immoral, unconstitutional (Republican) court opinion in a particular case. Ignore it, just like you ignore Dred Scott. It is a nullity. It is void.

“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.” — Alexander Hamilton

And remember, we’re not even talking about laws, when it comes to Roe. It’s a court opinion. Zippedy-do-dah.

No, what we really need, desperately, are executives and legislators who will keep THEIR OWN OATHS, regardless of what anyone else in any other branch does. Only then will we stop this holocaust.

The judicial supremacist fallacy is the most destructive doctrine extant in this once Free Republic. Nothing that I know of is doing more to extinguish our constitutional form of republican self-government.

Not only is the practice of human abortion NOT “the law of the land,” it COULD NOT BE the law of a land premised as this one is in a clear understanding and acknowledgment of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

“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...” — The Declaration of Independence

Every elected executive, every legislator, every judge, that allows the practice of human abortion to continue anywhere in America is in gross violation of their sacred oath of office. They have, as our constitutional republic’s founders charged against King George III in our nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence, “abdicated government here by declaring us out of [their] protection and waging war against us.”

“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the Deity, from the relations, we stand in, to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” — William Blackstone

God says “You shall not murder.” The U.S. Constitution says “No person shall be deprived of life” without a fair trial on a capital offense. That is the supreme law of the land. It’s not optional. It is imperative. Incremental abortion bills say “You may murder,” and “Some persons may be deprived of life without a fair trial on a capital offense.” As for me and my house, we stand with God and the Constitution concerning this most fundamental matter of principle.

[christianhomeschoolmommaof3]

In the 14th, a child has to be born to be a citizen. Read later that it says ‘nor shall any state deprive any PERSON (not citizen) of life, liberty or property...”
It does not say that you must be born to be a person but you must be born to be a citizen.

Is it legal to murder someone (a person) in this country illegally (a non citizen)?

Why is legal to kill the unborn (person) just because they have not been granted citizenship (born) yet?

[DoughtyOne]

Seems that way doesn’t it.

[TArcher]

>>Who are the ants and who are the termites?

Fascists and Insects were the central theme of StarShip Troopers.



Ants, Termites, Transhumanist/Postgenderist Fascists -- Which of them is the lesser weevil? Tough choice.

" Supports fetal tissue research; against over-intensity McCain was asked how he could be anti-abortion and still vote to support fetal tissue research. He supports fetal-tissue research, McCain said, because it has helped make progress against Parkinson’s disease. McCain concluded that abortion rights and anti-abortion activists should cooperate on issues of foster care and adoption. He had made his decision on abortion, he said, “after a lot of study, consultation, and a lot of prayer.” He added, “I’d like to have less intensity on this issue.” " http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/john_Mccain_abortion.htm

That's like saying it's ok to eat hamburgers - but not to kill cows. Juan's intensely Crazy, like most Postgenderist/Transhumanist RINOs.

[NKP_Vet]

“Sadly, the politics of compromise has decided that one class of children—those conceived by rape or incest—do not deserve protection from the agony of literally being ripped apart”

I agree 100%. Pro-life and being against abortion means no child should be murdered, not even ones that had the misfortune to be conceived through rape and incest. It’s still murder. But the RINOs love selective abortion. They are not pro-life and belong in the democratic party.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Yeah, blocking progress to end abortion sure is working like a charm. Babies can be aborted until right before birth, but you’re too “pure” to support a bill that at least bans abortion after 20 weeks, because in your imaginary world you are saving babies’ lives. Well, guess what, you are doing the abortionists’ dirty work by being so stubborn.

Our ultimate goal is a constitutional amendment declaring, in words that even liberals can understand, that human life begins at conception, as do protections afforded to “persons” under the Constitution. (Yes, our ultimate goal needs to be a constitutional amendment, because citing of constitutional provisions that (I agree) should be understood to prohibit abortion has been totally ineffectual at convincing courts on the subject.) But we don’t have 2/3 of each house of Congress who woul;d be willing to support such a constitutional amendment—not even close. *Of course* we need to keep fighting to achieve that, but trying to derail any effort to chip away at abortion does not help us achieve our ultimate goal, and all it does is permit the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies who otherwise would have been saved (and whose birth likely would have converted their mothers and other loved ones to the pro-life cause).

Or are you suggesting that it would be *good* to increase the number of unborn children who are murdered in a naked attempt to showcase the barbarity of abortion? Those babies are just eggs that you need to break for your omelet? What gives you the right to sacrifice innocent human lives for the greater good? Did the 0.03% of the vote that you got in the 2012 presidential election give you a mandate to overrule millions of pro-life Americans and to sentence to death unborn children who were conceived more than 20 weeks ago?

You’re like a spoiled brat who wants someone to take him from Boston to San Diego so he refuses rides from people willing to take him to St. Louis. Don’t be so stubborn: hitch the ride to St. Louis, and it will be easier to find transport to San Diego from there.

[AuH2ORepublican]

““Chip away at Roe”? What does that even mean? Roe is a forty year old immoral, unconstitutional (Republican) court opinion in a particular case. Ignore it, just like you ignore Dred Scott. It is a nullity. It is void.”

---

“Ignoring” Scott v. Sanford didn’t do a damn thing except keep slavery legal in every state that wanted it and even in the territories. We had to fight a war for slavery to end, and even after that we had to pass the 13th and 14th Amendments to overturn Scott v. Sanford.

The incrementalist strategy would work to end abortion, if we actually tried to pass laws that will be upheld by the courts and set new precedents on which we can build. Having SCOTUS rule that the “right to abortion” (sic) does not prohibit the government from banning abortion without an exception for the “health of the mother” would be a HUGE accomplishment that would be the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS inched towards that when it upheld the federal ban Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, but in that case the Court based its decision partly on the legislative finding that that particular procedure it made no difference to the health of the mother whether the baby was delivered alive or killed during delivery; this would be a clear precedent that the state interest in protecting human life outweighs the woman’s “right” to claim that she wants to abort to protect her “health.”

[EternalVigilance]

Legislators and executives swear to support the Constitution, not the opinions of judges. Until they start doing that, abortion on demand will not be stopped.

The Court has delegitimized itself. To obey them is to assent to the destruction of the Union and our form of government.