Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberals can't have it both ways on abortion ^ | Friday, August 30, 2002 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 08/29/2002 11:34:19 PM PDT by JohnHuang2

California is attempting to "enshrine" a "right to abortion" in new legislation that liberal lawmakers and Gov. Gray Davis believe will survive a change of heart on the Supreme Court.

Fearful that Republicans will regain control of the Senate and, hence, be able to push through pro-life nominees to the federal bench and high court, California Democrats are pushing this measure quickly, before the November elections.

If past Supreme Court precedence is any guide – and it should be – states with liberal pro-abortion tendencies are spinning their wheels with this kind of legislation because ultimately it won't matter.

As reported by on Aug. 22, state lawmakers "passed the Reproductive Privacy Act (SB 1301) by a vote of 44-23," and have since "sent the pro-abortion legislation to Democratic Gov. Gray Davis for his signature."

Davis spokesman Russ Lopez told the news service the governor would eagerly sign the bill – no surprise there – after personally tracking its progress for weeks since the state's first openly lesbian senator, Democrat Sheila Kuehl, introduced it.

"Kuehl believes her pro-abortion bill will protect Californians from an 'anti-choice president, an anti-choice Congress and the Supreme Court,' which she fears is one vote away from overturning Roe vs. Wade," said the news service.

The finishing touch was provided in the form of an analysis-cum-propaganda document issued by the California Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League last week, declaring that Kuehl's bill "would ensure that California has a constitutionally firm abortion law that protects the reproductive rights of all Californians, now and in the future."

"Constitutionally firm?" Weren't state laws banning abortion before the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision just as "constitutionally firm?" Obviously not.

As all liberals do, California's liberal lawmakers are refusing, in advance, to accept the reality of a high court anti-abortion decision after imposing the court's pro-abortion decision on everyone else for years. As long as things go the way of a liberal, they are game. For three decades they have chided pro-lifers: "Get over it! The Supreme Court says it's legal, so it's legal!"

What if justices reverse themselves? Why do California liberals believe their state law would "permanently exempt" that state from any future Supreme Court decision outlawing abortion? The court's pro-abortion decision in 1973 overturned anti-abortion laws on the books in every single state, including California, so why wouldn't the same precedent apply?

Obviously it would. If anything, the Supreme Court has garnered more, not less, authority over the past 30 years.

Oddly enough, you'd think liberals would support a reversal. After all, don't they generally oppose putting murderers to death? Why is the concept of saving unborn babies – the most helpless and voiceless in our society – from a death sentence too hard for them to grasp?

If the Bush administration successfully places pro-life jurists to the Supreme Court, it's very likely that sanity will once again prevail and our nation's longstanding effort to wipe out an entire generation of our young would finally, mercifully end.

If it happens, liberals will convulse. They will scream. They will holler. Perhaps they may even get violent. But then, they will be acting no different than pro-lifers were years ago when Supreme Court justices reversed every anti-abortion law in the country in one fell swoop.

At that point, liberals – like everyone else – will be bound to abide by the decision, state laws "pre-empting" such a ruling notwithstanding. If they don't, maybe pro-lifers could get Congress to pass laws restricting liberal protestors from access to the Supreme Court building.

When justices overturn Roe vs. Wade, liberals will just have to "get over it," because by then, it will no longer be a "right" – if it ever really was.

Liberals have terrible memories and are short on history. They can't tout a Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion then ignore a reversal that outlaws it.

TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021 last
To: Right To Life
False. Men have no legal power to coerce abortion; no man can legally disclaim financial obligations for a non-aborted infant.

True, but irrelevant. Men want to keep abortion legal so that they can have their sexual playground. And in about 80% of cases where women are abortion minded, it's because the father or her father are pressuring her to have an abortion. Maybe there is no legal coercion, but there is still coercion. Abortion is most certainly a male power trip.

The "blame the guy" motif is just not in concert with legal realities.

No, but it is in concert with social realities. Often those are much more important.


21 posted on 09/03/2002 11:59:08 AM PDT by ArGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021 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
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson