Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sitetest
I guess "stricter limits" means overturning Roe. Thanks for making that salient point

Phrase the question like that and see if you get 60% support. If that kind of support really existed, a constitutional amendment would be a snap.
1,452 posted on 11/14/2004 12:29:15 PM PST by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1420 | View Replies ]


To: JeffAtlanta

Dear JeffAtlanta,

"If that kind of support really existed, a constitutional amendment would be a snap."

Well, I don't think so. I've never seen any proposed amendment that doesn't appear to ban pretty much all abortions. Although I favor a complete ban on abortion, I don't believe that's in the cards anytime soon (50 year? 100 years? Second Coming?).

You're not going to get 60% to go for a total ban of abortion. I never said you would.

But you'd get 60% to go for, say, almost total ban of third trimester abortions (not permitted under Roe). You'd get way more than 60% to go for a ban of partial birth abortion with only a life of the mother exception (already rejected by the Supreme Court, holding under Roe, in the Nebraska case).

I daresay, you might get majorities to go along with requiring spousal consent (absolutely verboten under Roe).

You might also get large majorities to go along with significant restrictions, close to a ban, on second trimester abortions (definitely, absolutely forbidden under Roe).

You'd get large majorities to ban abortion for purposes of sex selection, or eye color selection, etc., probably right back to some time shortly after conception (definitely, absolutely, totally forbidden under Roe).

You'd get large majorities to ban abortion as birth control from some time shortly after conception (certainly and completely banned by Roe, in fact, use as "back up" birth control is more or less cited as a reason for holding Roe).

These questions have been polled on at one time or other, and they have have received majority support.

What Roe covers is not held by the majority of Americans.

But heck, let's try it out!

Let's hold them to their promises, and get the President and Republican Senate to appoint Justices who will merely overturn Roe, and let the PEOPLE decide.

What are you guys worried about? That the people might agree more with us nutjob pro-lifers?

LOL.


sitetest


1,465 posted on 11/14/2004 12:45:22 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1452 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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