PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[cpforlife.org]

PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

We believe that abortion is infanticide, and that a holocaust of infants is taking place. We do not believe that there is any other issue on Earth that compares with abortion in moral import. And therefore, there is no policy or combination of policies you Republicans can offer, including perfect tax policies, tort reform, and every other thing that is near and dear to Republican hearts, that matters a damn if abortion is overlooked and allowed to slide by.

We know that this issue has to be settled in the Supreme Court, nowhere else. And we know that the opportunity to put new justices on the court comes once in a decade, maybe, and that the current opportunity to alter the complexion of the court is not going to come again for a generation. Therefore, the real possibility exists that abortion can finally be seriously curtailed, soon, by the Supreme Court changing Roe v. Wade or eliminating it...IF, and ONLY IF, we can get pro-life judges on that court.

To do that, we have trusted the Republicans for years. We just came out and voted for you again this time, in unprecedented numbers, because we are not stupid and we know what is at stake. Not just evangelicals either. The religious CATHOLIC vote went Republican in 2004, and they didn't do it because of trade policy or even gay marriage. Their issue is abortion.

And the overriding issue is abortion.

So, if the Republicans allow Senator Specter to get the Chair of the Judiciary Committee and he blocks pro-life nominees, or if the Republicans do not use the nuclear option to override Democrat filibusters of pro-life nominees, THIS TIME there is no place for Republicans to hide. WE KNOW that you have the power, now, because WE just voted to give it to you. We understand that you can block Specter. And we understand the nuclear option.

And therefore, we most certainly will understand that if you allow the pro-life judges to be blocked, that it will be your political CHOICE to have done so. You CAN put pro-life judges on the bench, if you expend a lot of political capital. This will offend some people - a lot of people. And that is the price you HAVE to pay to get our votes next time. You have to be willing to bet the whole house to end infanticide.

If not, we will not vote for you. We won't go running to vote for the Democrats: they're pro-abortion. We won't go out and form a third party: we're not stupid and know that won't work. We'll just stay home, just like we did in 2000. Except that in 2000 it was out of frustration and neglect, and the lack of belief that anything will change. There was no organized campaign to keep the pro-life vote home in 2000.

This time, it's different. We understand the system, and we know that you have the power. And we demand that you use the power straight down the line to fill the high court and the appellate courts with judges who will protect the lives of babies. Period. This is not negotiable. At all. This is why we voted for you. You have nothing with which to bargain with us, and if you screw us, we will stay organized and we will stay home purposely to destroy the Republican party. Because if you do not protect the babies when you have the power to do it, you are no better than the Democrats...and worse, you will have lied to us.

This means, in effect, that all of those things YOU care most about: taxation, immigration, trade and business policy, deregulation - all of those core issues that come as an economic package, are held hostage to our issue: babies. If you will not protect the babies, we will stay home and let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in.

This is called "Chicken". It is called a "Mexican Standoff". And since we are fired up by the certitude that we are doing God's work in defending babies, we cannot be bought, and you cannot win so much as an election for dog catcher in this country without us.

Therefore, the solution is simple and obvious: give us what we voted for you to do. Give us pro-life judges. Use all of your power to do it. Sweep Specter out of the way: is he worth losing all the rest of your agenda? - because we really will stay home and throw the country to the Democrats if you're no better than they are on abortion, just to punish YOU for having betrayed us. When the filibusters come, and they will come, use the nuclear option to override them. That will poison the Senate, yes. So what? We are talking about babies here. And with our votes, militantly mobilized because we are winning, alongside of yours, in 2006 and 2008 and beyond, even if the Senate is poisoned, you will be able to replace it with a more Republican one.

That there is even a debate going on as to what to do with Specter is alarming, but we have had our hearts broken before, so we'll sit and pray and trust President Bush and Senator Frist and the Republicans to do the right thing.

Screw us, though, and we will turn on you and your whole agenda will go down the drain with the blood of the babies you wouldn't put your power on the line to save.

The easy solution, the win-win solution, is to BE as pro-life as you campaigned as being. Just do it.

I apologize for the length of this post. But it needed to be said. The Republicans do not seem to get it. They need to understand that we are more committed to saving babies than we are to the fortunes of the Republican Party. That Specter is still in play demonstrates that too many of them do not take this seriously.

Rather than test us, what you guys should do is simply cave, now, and give us what we want. Do that, and you wont hear from us again - there will be no creeping theocracy in America - because this is about the only religious issue that Catholics and Orthodox and Evangelicals AGREE on.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"It is the health clause that needs court limitations, and I believe that can be done without violating Roe."

You may believe that, but the Supreme Court doesn't.

Actually, the health thingy is technically a part of Doe v. Bolton. But these are companion cases, issued on the same day, one to establish the principle, the other to provide significant guidance as to how to interpret the principle.

Doe v. Bolton holds that "health" means just about anything, including relieving anxiety from missing the prom.

And the Supreme Court has held to this.

If you wanna tighten up the "health" clause, you're going to have to overturn the entire contraption of Roe and Doe.

Sorry.


sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"Sure, the appeals courts are brimming over with challenges. These challenges are normal and have yet to work their way though."

Plenty of challenges have already made their way to the Supreme Court.

Some very minor forms of regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, and informed consent come to mind) have been permitted.

No real restriction of abortion has been permitted.

Including Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion. Ruled not allowable under Roe.

But, wait, northward of 70% of folks want a ban on partial birth abortion! How can that be?? Huge majorities of folks want something not permitted under Roe!! How is that possible??

LOL.

As for activist judges, if we wanted activist judges, we'd want folks who would go beyond overturning Roe to enunciating that abortion itself is a constitutional violation, and must be banned forthwith.

But that is not what we seek. We seek that judges will read themselves OUT of the debate, and turn the matter back over to the political process, the legislative process.

Why do you fear that result? Afraid that people might support more restrictions than you'd like?


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.

I don't believe they would. I believe they would fix it, if given the opportunity.

Their counterparts would not have anything to do with that idea however.

You really can't say that they would overturn it.

The court cannot simply overturn what it views as bad or unworkable law. it must have a case that it can use to clarify, extend or modify the existing laws.

The idea of overturning Roe is just a pipe dream.

[Cold Heat]

And the Supreme Court has held to this.

The old court did.

We don't know what the new one will look like, and that is basically what we are discussing here and now.

[cgk]

Posts # 156, 243, 251, 260, 298, 400, 415, and 450 (and this is BY NO MEANS comprehensive) offer a cornucopia of quotes which further prove the extremism involved here.

I would like to point out there are MANY posts that are "extreme" on both sides of the aisle here. I haven't seen any pro-life FReepers calling for the murder of abortionists, as they have been accused of doing, but it is being said. Is that less of an offense in your eyes?

BTW... it is considered bad tact to criticize your FRiends without pinging them to your criticism.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"'Yet, you express favor for two Justices who would certainly overturn Roe.'

"I don't believe they would. I believe they would fix it, if given the opportunity."

What you believe is irrelevant. Writing in dissenting opinions, both have written that Roe is bad constitutional law, and ought to be thrown out.

"The court cannot simply overturn what it views as bad or unworkable law. it must have a case that it can use to clarify, extend or modify the existing laws."

Wrong again. When a case comes to the Supreme Court where ruling one way or other would have the effect of overturning a previous decision, the court usually does not.

But the court may, indeed, overturn a previous decision. The court may, indeed, overturn the precedents provided by previous rulings from previous Supreme Courts.

Look up Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned a previous Supreme Court ruling in Plessy vs. Ferguson.

In Plessy, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" was permitted in laws that segregated the races. In Brown, Plessy was overturned, and segregation was ruled unconstitutional.

The court may overturn Roe, and considered it when deciding Casey.

Try again.


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Why do you fear that result? Afraid that people might support more restrictions than you'd like?

I fear judicial activists of any color, stripe or political party affiliation.

They have no business on the bench.

PERIOD!!!!!!!END OF STATEMENT!

[streetpreacher]

"I affirmed the wisdom of Clinton's statement regarding abortion in the run up to the election in his first term.

He won that election!"

Yes, he did with that gigantic 43% mandate! Nice. A FReeper appeals to Clinton. Abortion does indeed make for strange bedfellows.

[JeffAtlanta]

In the meanwhile, in various polls, large majorities have answered that they would endorse specific restrictions on abortions that would be impermissible under Roe.

Organ stealing has always been a crime - abortion is legal. You're being disingenuous by trying to pick out irrelevant exceptions.

Again, if these large majorities really exist why not propose a specific amendment to overturn Roe V Wade? The amendment doesn't have to ban all abortions - it can just be specifically targeted at Roe V Wade. Why go through all of this work, uncertainty and disappointment if you indeed do have these large majorities?

[JeffAtlanta]

I can add them together if both groups hold for results that violate Roe, and I am merely trying to make the point that Roe must be overturned.

But you know that if the question was phrased "Do you want Roe V Wade overturned" the support would be no where close to 60%.

[streetpreacher]

"Opinions are like

---

, everyone has one."

Wow, you floored me with that gleeming piece of knowledge.

[Cold Heat]

both have written that Roe is bad constitutional law, and ought to be thrown out.

Both have been critical of the law, but both are now bound by it. Scalia has made comments in the past, but I have heard little or nothing from Thomas.

He made his stance quite clear however, that their is no right to choose in the constitution.

But, they cannot vacate the law. They must follow it's intent unless of course, they decide to become activists.

Or better yet, they receive a case that will allow them to mitigate some of the more onerous provisions of Roe.

I think the latter is the more likely course of action.

[King Prout]

I can add nothing to your post.
*ovation*

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

"'And the Supreme Court has held to this.'

"The old court did.

"We don't know what the new one will look like, and that is basically what we are discussing here and now."

Cold Heat, have you been paying attention?

Roe v. Wade was promulgated by the fat black-robed asses in 1973.

We have had 31 years of Roe jurisprudence.

The Supreme Court, over that time, permitted not a single real restriction to abortion on demand, up to and including four-fifths infanticide at term.

That is the structure of Roe. Read what these folks write. They rule as they do because any other ruling undermines fatally Roe itself. That is what they say. That is why they overturned Nebraska's PBA ban.

Justice O'Connor has written repeatedly, if a law has the effect of constructively denying a woman an abortion - any abortion, for any reason, at any time, the law does not pass muster with Roe.

Your previous comments lead me to believe that you aren't really very aware of what's happened on this issue. Your belief that Justices Thomas and Scalia would not vote to overturn Roe actually are in contradiction with what's in the public record.

The decision of Roe v. Wade, despite what liberals and libertines think, is not Holy Writ. It's just a really clunky, really badly-argued and reasoned decision of the Supreme Court. It has no more eternal value than Dred Scott of Plessy vs. Ferguson.

The left holds to it because without it, they know that folks will accept, nay, demand significant restrictions on abortions. In many states, abortion will only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. Some states will continue with a wide abortion license, although I wouldn't be surprised to see nearly all states significantly curtail access to late-term abortions.

Bottom line, the only thing preventing the American people from restricting abortion significantly in the United States is Roe.

Roe's gotta go.


sitetest

[tpaine]

sitetest wrote:

Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion.

Not true. Read the courts opinion. States can regulate late term abortion to protect the rights of the baby.

[The Roe decision also stopped States from prosecuting only ~early term~ abortions as murder.]
Peterson was just convicted in CA of [late term] murder of an unborn baby.

Obviously, you have little regard for the truth of this issue, s-test. Why is that?

You need to read what I wrote before responding to it. States may permit the prosecution of folks OTHER THAN THE MOTHER who harm unborn children.

Specious claim. States have always had the power to prosecute criminal acts.
Are you really this illogical?

What I said was, "Currently, Roe permits no restrictions of abortion." I will expand, if you did not catch my meaning, "Roe permits no real restrictions on induced abortions procured by the mother."

That is not true. States can 'really' regulate late term abortion. Read the court opinion.

What Mr. Peterson did does not fall under "abortion procured by the mother."

Gee, who would have guessed..

In fact, in approving the most mild regulation of abortion (parental notification with judicial bypass, minor waiting periods, etc.), Justice O'Connor has pointed out that any regulation that had the effect of actually denying a woman of any abortion at any time during pregnancy would not pass Roe's scrutiny. sitetest.

Justice O'Connors opinions can be challenged by any State. Feel free to get your State to do so.

[Cold Heat]

Stuff it Street!

I have had enough hyperbole for one day.

Cries of dead babies and bloody forearms combined with Clinton lover is a bit much.

[Henchman]

Don't worry sitetest, skywalk wouldn't recognize a dictatorship if he / she saw it. Murder is murder weather it is in a "Democracy" or Dictatorship or underground abortion mills. Location or type of government doesn't justify taking the baby's life.

As far as the "coat hangar" back room abortion mills where the woman's life is at risk - possible, but one should be willing to face the penalty when taking a life and not ask others to condone that action. Education, adoption etc are all options. Only fools talk about back room abortion mills as the only option.

Either way, abortion has been cited as one of the highest risk procedures as it relates to breast cancer. The people who raise the "back room coat hanger" scenario are going to have to deal with that fact. If they are so concerned, where is their empathy for those who have or will contract breast cancer because of their permissiveness? No problem for them, just hang onto the "L"iberal ideas at any cost. BTW, isn't skywalk's position contrary to the stated use of Jim Robinson's Web Site? The rules are on the front page.

[JeffAtlanta]

You equate Social Security, Medicare and the Income tax with abortion? How can you expect your criticisms to be taken seriously by Christian conservatives on this thread?

Because all of those are political issues - like it or not its the reality. The only people that can do anything about abortion are either elected officials or those appointed and confirmed by elected officials. The reality of this makes abortion a political issue.

Many conservatives don't want to the republican part to commit political suicide just for abortion. The reality is that the republicans won't be able to do anything about it anyway and the firestorm will take them out of power for generations.

With the conservatives out of power, we will not only continue to have abortions, but we will also lose personal freedoms, endure income redistribution and loss of American sovereignty.

Preach on and start your own party if you want. An amendment is your only hope - don't force the republican party to fall on their sword to make you feel better. Do your own work and get an ammendment passed. If its truly the will of the American people, it shouldn't be a problem.

[sitetest]

Dear Cold Heat,

Overturning Roe isn't judicial activism. It's judicial INactivism, in that it INactivates the court from such intimate involvement in this question.

Judicial decisions that have the effect of permitting legislatures and voters to decide issues, that abjure jurisdiction over questions, are the opposite of judicial activism. Do you understand that rather basic premise?

Overturning Roe returns the question to the political process, and would be an example of courts taking themselves OUT of the realm of activism.


sitetest

[Cold Heat]

Roe's gotta go.

No, Connor has to go!

Dumping Roe is a unrealistic goal at this time. I stand firmly behind my assertions.

It is not gonna happen.