Skip to comments.
Abortion Rights Leader: Expect Filibuster Unless Next Supreme Court Nominee Shows Support
AP via TBO ^
| 01/16/2003
| By David Espo The Associated Press
Posted on 01/16/2003 7:01:06 PM PST by KQQL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
To: Sonny M; afuturegovernor; Kevin Curry; MHGinTN; Luis Gonzalez
Maybe we just pull the conservative version of a david souter, you know, bring in a guy who intentionally misleads everyone, gets there vote, and then does his own thing. We could have our guy out and out lie, since the libs do it all the time, and just make sure we know he is a pro-lifer. I know this is very dishonest, just a thought though.His name is Alberto Gonzales. Among those who discuss such matters regularly, Gonzales and Souter are known as "stealth" candidates. They sort of sneak in under the radar. Gonzales is current White House counsel but when Dubya was governor of Texas, Gonzales was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
The reason he's a "stealth" candidate is that he was the author of a Texas Supreme Court decision that appears to the untrained eye to be a bold pro-choice landmark opinion. But Gonzales was simply interpreting current law as it's written, without addressing its constitutionality.
41
posted on
01/17/2003 4:32:02 PM PST
by
Bryan
To: mvpel
Under what circumstances would you consider abortion to be acceptable? If you consider abortion to be unacceptable and criminal under ANY circumstances, then how do you see any alternative to the Ceaucescu approach except unconstitutional selective enforcement?Authorities will enforce an abortion ban in the same manner they enforce bans on underage drinking, illegal drug use, drunk driving, etc. There are quite a few people who will drive home from the bar tonight while intoxicated. It is Friday night after all. Not all of them will be pulled over by the police. But some will, and they'll go to jail, and there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.
And let me assure you that there are millions of little teeny boppers out there getting drunk and getting stoned, listening to some really bad music cranked up loud. Not all of the little parties will be raided by the police tonight. But some will, and the little teeny boppers at those little parties will go to jail. Once again, there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.
This is not selective enforcement. This is accepting the things you can't change, taking action to change the things you can, and having the wisdom to know the difference.
42
posted on
01/17/2003 4:39:24 PM PST
by
Bryan
To: Anti-Bolshevik
He's way too old now.
To: Bryan
"O'Connor, while the same age as Ginsberg, is in very good health and will probably serve for many more years. The most likely retirees in the immediate future are Stevens, Ginsberg and Rehnquist,... I believe O'Connor has had breast cancer.
44
posted on
01/17/2003 4:42:18 PM PST
by
StormEye
To: Bryan
I hope your right. I don't know that much about the possible Supreme Court appointees. Its in President Bush's hands. He has the chance to be a great hero among the political right if his selection is a excellent one. It is the most important domestic policy action he will take.
To: afuturegovernor
Abortion is not on Bush's short list of objectives:
1. Win the war
2. Revive the economy
3. Leave no child behind
4. Appoint jurists who will interpret the law, not make it
5. Restore respect for the office of POTUS
Anti-abortionists don't have the votes.
Abortion has replaced social security as the third rail of American politics.
To: MHGinTN
47
posted on
01/17/2003 4:48:32 PM PST
by
Remedy
To: Man of the Right
NARAL Goes 1-for-20 in Election
By David Freddoso (c) Human Events, 2002 In spite of nationwide victories for pro-life candidates, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) President Kate Michelman issued a statement November 6 that "it would be a serious mistake for politicians to read yesterday's results as a mandate to insert themselves in women's personal choices."
Michelman is in denial. Earlier this year,
NARAL picked its 20 "key" House and Senate races. In each, it supported its candidate (all of whom were Democrats) with cash and endorsements. Only one "key" NARAL candidate-Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa)-won. Ironically, that was over a pro-abortion Republican, outgoing Rep. Greg Ganske. NARAL likely would have gone 1-for-21, but it did not change its web page to endorse Walter Mondale (D.) for Senate in Minnesota after the death of Paul Wellstone.
Here are NARAL's 20 "key" races, its endorsements and pre-election commentary. The source: NARAL's web site, www.naral.org.
State/District |
NARAL Candidate |
Opponent |
NARAL Comments |
Outcome |
Ga. Senate |
Max Cleland (D) |
Saxby Chambliss (R) |
"Cleland is rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL." |
Chambliss, 53%-46% |
Ga. 11 |
Roger Kahn (D) |
Phil Gingrey (R) |
". . .anti-choice State Senator Phil Gingrey. . ." |
Gingrey, 52%-48% |
Colo. Senate |
Tom Strickland (D) |
Wayne Allard (R) |
"Strickland has made his pro-choice stand an important centerpiece of his campaign." |
Allard, 51%-46% |
Colo. 04 |
Stan Matsunaka (D) |
Marilyn Musgrave (R) |
"Matsunaka plans to make choice a key issue in the race." |
Musgrave, 55%-42% |
Colo. 07 |
Mike Feeley (D) |
Bob Beauprez (R) |
"Beauprez. . . supports a ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest." |
Beauprez, 47%-47% |
Ia. Senate |
Tom Harkin (D) |
Greg Ganske (R) |
Harkin is a "true leader on choice" |
Harkin, 54%-44% |
Mich. 09 |
David Fink (D) |
Joe Knollenberg (R) |
"David Fink is running [against] anti-choice U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R)." |
Knollenberg, 58%-40% |
Mich. 10 |
Carl Marlinga (D) |
Candice Miller (R) |
"Choice will be a defining issue between these candidates." |
Miller, 63%-36% |
Mo. Senate |
Jean Carnahan (D) |
Jim Talent (R) |
"Anti-choice . . . will challenge Carnahan. . ." |
Talent, 50%-49% |
N.H. |
Jean Shaheen (D) |
John Sununu (R) |
"Governor Shaheen [is] a former NARAL-NH volunteer." |
Sununu, 51%-47% |
N.H. 01 |
Martha Fuller Clark (D) |
Jeb Bradley (R) |
"[Clark] is a true pro-choice leader in the New Hampshire House." |
Bradley, 58%-39% |
N.J. 05 |
Anne Sumers (D) |
Scott Garrett (R) |
"Pro-choice Anne Sumers . . .will contrast with Garrett's socially conservative record." |
Garrett, 60%-38% |
N.J. 07 |
Tim Carden (D) |
Mike Ferguson (R) |
"Pro-choice . . . Tim Carden is challenging anti-choice U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson." |
Ferguson, 58%-41% |
N.C. Senate |
Erskine Bowles (D) |
Elizabeth Dole (R) |
"Dole's position . . .strongly opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment." |
Dole,54%-45% |
Ore. Senate |
Bill Bradbury (D) |
Gordon Smith (R) |
"Smith's staunch opposition to abortion rights is out of step with pro-choice Oregonians." |
Smith, 56%-40% |
Pa. 06 |
Dan Wofford (D) |
Jim Gerlach (R) |
". . .a 'bellwether' district. . ." |
Gerlach, 51%-49% |
Pa. 15 |
Ed O'Brien (D) |
Pat Toomey (R) |
"Congressional Democrats are so excited about O'Brien . . . " |
Toomey, 57%-43% |
Tex. Senate |
Ron Kirk (D) |
John Cornyn (R) |
"Pro-choice Texans are galvanized behind Ron Kirk." |
Cornyn, 55%-43% |
Tex. 05 |
Ron Chapman (D) |
Jeb Hensarling (R) |
"Anti-choice Jeb Hensarling (R), a former aide to anti-choice U.S. Senator Phil Gramm. . ." |
Hensarling, 58%-40% |
S.C. Senate |
Alex Sanders (D) |
Lindsey Graham (R) |
"Sanders is a former judge with a solid pro-choice record." |
Graham, 54%-44% |
48
posted on
01/17/2003 4:50:05 PM PST
by
Remedy
To: Man of the Right
Statute |
House Action |
Senate Action |
President's Action |
Unborn Victims of Violence Act HR 503 S 480 |
Passed 4/26/01 Vote 252 - 172 |
Bottled up by Senator Daschle |
Would Have Supported |
Human Cloning Ban HR 2505 S 1899 |
Passed 7/31/01 Vote 265 - 162 |
Killed July 2002 by Senator Daschle |
Would Have Supported |
Ban on Abortions in Military Facilities |
5/20/02 Vote 215 - 162 Supporting Ban |
6/21/02 Vote 40 - 52 Did Not Support Ban |
Supported Ban |
Child Custody Protection Act HR 476 |
Passed 4/17/02 Vote 260 - 161 |
Bottled up by Senator Daschle |
Would Have Supported |
Born Alive Infant Protection Act HR 2175 |
Passed 3/12/02 Vote 380 - 15 |
Passed 7/18/02 Voice Vote |
Signed Bill 8/05/02 |
Partial Birth Abortion Ban HR 4965 |
Passed 8/06/02 Vote 274 - 151 |
Bottled up by Senator Daschle |
Is Supportive |
Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...
- When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
- Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
- Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
- When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
- Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
- Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
- The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
- A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
- The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley
Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...
- The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
- The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
- A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
- Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
- Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
- A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
- Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?
Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...
- I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
- The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.
Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ... The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible. Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43). |
49
posted on
01/17/2003 4:51:11 PM PST
by
Remedy
To: Man of the Right
Pro-life majorities are overwhelmingJanet Folger launches Faith2Action with national poll, ad campaign
Faith 2 Actionreleased on Jan. 15 an eye-opening national poll, conducted by well-respected Wirthlin International, that shows the pro-life movement is the strongest it has ever been! The American public was asked: "Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who would uphold laws that restore legal protection for unborn children?" The result? An astounding 66 percent -- a full two thirds -- said YES!
Even more than that, seven out of 10 surveyed said they to restore legal protection to protect unborn children. With the American people behind us, now is the time to start winning the cultural war by working TOGETHER with the most effective organizations on the side of faith and family now linked together in one place: faith2action.org.
50
posted on
01/17/2003 4:53:38 PM PST
by
Remedy
To: KQQL
Just because the democraps don't care how many babies they kill does not mean everyone has to live by thier rules.
To: KQQL
OK, here's a deal for you, Katie:
One filibuster, and we de-fund Planned Parenthood. And with each filibuster, we de-fund another left-wing organization.
Deal?
52
posted on
01/17/2003 6:27:37 PM PST
by
savedbygrace
(Jesus is Lord)
To: Bryan
Authorities will enforce an abortion ban in the same manner they enforce bans on underage drinking, illegal drug use, drunk driving, etc. There are quite a few people who will drive home from the bar tonight while intoxicated. It is Friday night after all. Not all of them will be pulled over by the police. But some will, and they'll go to jail, and there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.But the examples you give are all victimless crimes, unless the drunk behind the wheel doesn't manage to make it home safely -- but even in that case he'd be charged with vehicular homicide in addition to drunk driving.
Looking at the invective here, it strikes me that the goal is to have abortion treated exactly like murder (referring to doctors as serial killers, etc), since it snuffs out an innocent human life. And there's no statute of limitations for murder.
What you're proposing is not a "serious" enforcement of an abortion ban, as I put it in my posts. It's lackadasical enforcement, and that's not going to be good enough for some of the more vocal participants in this debate.
53
posted on
01/17/2003 7:28:33 PM PST
by
mvpel
To: mvpel
Abortionists are serial killers. Once you manage to get over the hurdle of condoning this SCOTUS sanctioned wrong in the specious name of a woman's right to choose and an unborn child disenfranchisement with no choice to live or die, you might start to look at how it is that a society changes its direction short of revolution or catastrophic disaster.
54
posted on
01/17/2003 9:06:35 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(And our courageous military people will fight to insure even these fools' right to be fools!)
To: mvpel
Oops! Forgot to change the tagline from another thread.
[Here's a hint on changing the direction of society, without resorting to violent intervention : writers have traditionally manipulated the psyche of peoples when issues of grave import arise and appear to have little coherence toward doing the right thing.]
55
posted on
01/17/2003 9:09:35 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(And our courageous military people will fight to insure even these fools' right to be fools!)
Fiddle stix, did it again!
56
posted on
01/17/2003 9:11:38 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Evil Interrupted, a novel coming soon to a nation near you.)
To: Richard Kimball
Ping ... and what would you guess my age to be? [Related to the thread regarding the high school student and your observations.]
57
posted on
01/17/2003 9:57:20 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
(Evil Interrupted, a novel coming soon to a nation near you.)
To: Samurai_Jack
Ditto:
"Do the right thing Mr President, you know what that is and we will support you. Time for Frist to use his surgical skills to go for the jugular."
To: savedbygrace
I second your motion.
"One filibuster, and we de-fund Planned Parenthood.
And with each filibuster, we de-fund another left-wing organization.
Deal?"
To: victim soul
USA/CNN POLL
Percentage of adults who would favor the following laws or proposals:
Requiring doctors to inform patients about alternatives to abortion before performing the procedure 88%
Requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours before having the procedure done 78%
Requiring women under 18 to get parental consent for any abortion 73%
Requiring that the husband of a married woman be notified if she decides to have an abortion 72%
A law that would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months of pregnancy known as a "partial birth abortion," except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother 70%
A constitutional amendment to ban abortion in all circumstances, except when necessary to save the life of the mother 38%
Source: USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll conducted Friday-Sunday of 1,002 adults. Margin of error: +/-3 percentage points.
Excerpt from:Abortion battle hits pivotal point
By Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-15-abortion-usat_x.htm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson