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 CNSNews.com 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.
We've gotten way off base and I hope the pendulum takes a swing back towards morality and goodness and some "real" conscience of the acts we have permitted under the guise of Freedom.
Sac
Sure they can . . . and they will.
If the Supreme Court does reverse Roe v. Wade totally as it should (it has already reversed it in part), the most likely outcome will be that the decision to outlaw or not outlaw abortion will fall back to the states, which is where it was and constitutionally should be in the first place.
All you have to do is listen to the statements of the various anti-Roe Justices on the Supreme Court right now to know this.
This statement assumes liberals actually CARE about the rights of the innocent. Every action they take , every cause they espouse shows this is not the case. Liberals only care about creating a society totally free of personal responsibility. You commit a murder...No death penalty. You have an unwanted pregnancy...just get an abortion. At heart liberals are hedonists with a strong elitist streak.
It very much depends on how they do it. If they recognize officially that life begins at conception then abortion will be legally defined as murder in all US states and territories. End of abortion.
God Save America (Please)
If liberals really cared about the little guy this would be a valid question. However, liberals only care about power. And abortion is power. It's power of men over women, who otherwise might ask for a relationship before having sex. And it's power of both over the unborn.
Shalom.
I think the Supreme Court can conclude that the Constitution did in no way intend to give women the FREEDOM to Kill their unborn child and make it binding throughout the land.
The penalty for engaging in such an act would fall to each State.
The Men who created the Constitution never dreamed that the "gentle sex" would become murderers of their own flesh and blood.Murder is always wrong except in self-defense.
Sac
Freedom to be a conscienceless trollop...
What penalties would you recommend?
Let the hypocrisy begin.
What hypocrisy, as you define the word, are you expecting?
True.
And abortion is power.
True.
It's power of men over women, who otherwise might ask for a relationship before having sex.
False. Men have no legal power to coerce abortion; no man can legally disclaim financial obligations for a non-aborted infant.
And it's power of both over the unborn.
False again. Abortion is something that women only can authorize legally...it is something that the women who "choose" it do to babies and to the men who father those babies. The culpability could not be more clear. The refusal of too many conservatives to openly identify that cuplability is the reason abortion persists.
The "blame the guy" motif is just not in concert with legal realities.
No man. not a single one, can authorize an abortion in America.
Technically possible, but pro-life justices tend to oppose legislating from the bench. So realistically, the best case is to have the USSC turn the issue completely back to the states.
Women are not virtuous by virtue of being women. Some are, some aren't. Some men are, some aren't. Mythologizing one sex over the other is as bad as conflating character and race.
For their protected groups.
You commit a murder...No death penalty. You have an unwanted pregnancy...just get an abortion. At heart liberals are hedonists with a strong elitist streak.
Indeed.
On what do you base the parenthetical contention reprised above?
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.