Posted on 07/07/2018 6:47:42 AM PDT by Boomer
As you say, this is a nested attack: use Roe to keep conservatives off court, with the intention of frustrating any/other state initiatives. Anyone - patriot or proglib - knows there's not a state in the union that would ban abortion upon Roe being reversed.
So, choice is not in danger. Rather, it's the left's technique of using the federal level combined with non-democratic court legislated decisions as their (not so secret) weapon.
It all depends on court cases and Roberts won’t take on a Roe one.
Since it is not, as you say, clear in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court should have left the matter up to the states.
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 HappinessYour position is a position of cowardice and a lack of principle.
End government funding and Murder Inc. will die on it’s own.
Let President Pence and VP Haley worry about the social issues, especially with a packed SCOTUS. Right now we need to get rid of everything Obama did to harm the country.
Simple answer for the SCOTUS pick is, “it’s settled law.” Let the rats defend something they already won until it is time for a case to be brought before SCOTUS getting rid of Roe v Wade.
Roberts is not that aggressive on the issue.
Protection of human life is our issue.
Justice demands that the law protect the unborn.
Citizens who refuse to stand up for the unborn are morally complicit in the killing.
The right to abortion isn’t in the constitution. I have read it.
You have it backwards. I’m against gays and trans in the military. That is not the place to play with social experiments. It’s a fighting and defensive force.
Like homicide and infantacide, the US Constitution is silent on abortion.
Before Roe v. Wage, it was a state law issue. It destroys our Constitution to have judges create new constitutional rights (such as a right to destroy children before they are born).
Ms. Lahern is a libertarian, not a conservative.
Judge Barrett or whoever President Trump appoints will hopefully restore the Constitutional order.
Pound sand libby.
Oh He will, and doesn't a child have a father? Where is his voice in this matter?
Ronald Reagan on Protecting the Sanctity of Life
January 1, 1983
“Abortion concerns not just the unborn child, it concerns every one of us. [...] Every legislator, every doctor, and every citizen needs to recognize that the real issue is whether to affirm and protect the sanctity of all human life, or to embrace a social ethic where some human lives are valued and others are not. As a nation, we must choose between the sanctity of life ethic and the “quality of life” ethic. [...] I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, “without being a soul of prayer.”
A FREE nation that does not uphold the sanctity of LIFE, deserves neither.
The SCOTUS do strange things at times Roberts action is a big question.
They will have to agree on something—they say that men shouldn’t have a role. It’s a tough decision.
Liberal women, Hollywood sluts, and men like Peter Fonda, DiNiro and Weinstein could still pay to have their babies killed - - even if Roe was overturned.
The 'choice' goes back to the States... I'm surprised California didn't adopt the liberal proposal that women should be able to kill their children up until their two years old. Some liberal academic proposed that a few years ago...
On the pro-life/pro-choice issue; our elected congress should decide if that’s a federal issue or a states issue then vote accordingly. Another option is a compromise that keeps showing up; the 20 week rule.
________________________________________________________
But Roe vs. Wade does not allow the issue to be decided by the legislatures (federal or state). The court ruled it’s a Constitutional right based on an implied right to privacy. So you’re saying let the judiciary continue to usurp this issue from the people?
Killing children is not a constitutional right. There is a right to life though.
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.