Posted on 01/25/2007 1:30:04 PM PST by GulfBreeze
This past Monday, thousands of pro-life activists converged on Washington, D.C. These activists came from far and wide, from the West Coast to the East Coast, to participate in the March for Life and to petition their elected officials to stop the holocaust they believe is taking place in the scores of abortion clinics scattered throughout the nation.
And while these activists withstood bitter weather, and the occasional snow shower, to make sure their message echoed throughout the halls of Congress, one California Congressman heard their pleas.
Duncan Hunter, Congressman for California's 52nd District and possible Republican presidential candidate, re-introduced his "Right to Life Act" on Monday, the 34th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. In essence, the Right to Life Act, which had 101 co-sponsors (the largest ever) in the 109th Congress, serves as a Congressional declaration that life begins at the moment of conception and, therefore, the unborn are entitled to the constitutional protections entitled to all individuals. In a statement made on the floor of the House, Duncan explained "one of most fascinating... shows on television today, 'In the Womb' on the National Geographic Channel, provides viewers with amazingly-detailed footage of unborn children growing and interacting in utero." Such footage depicts the unborn child sucking a thumb, smiling, crying and responding to certain movements made by the mother. Under the constitutional framework established by Roe, this same child can be terminated with the legal blessing of the highest court in the nation.
Such images of the unborn has led Hunter, and the many pro-life activists that have lobbied for personhood for the unborn over the past three decades, "to question why a nation, that can spend millions of dollars searching for life on other planets, is not able to discern life in the beating heart of an unborn child."
When Justice Harry Blackmun issued the Roe majority opinion in 1973, many of the technological advances that are routine today were unavailable. The medical uncertainty surrounding the beginnings of life led the High Court to create a sliding scale that determined abortion rights based on viability. In other words, the closer the woman was to the moment of conception, the greater her right to abortion on demand. The closer the woman was to the child's delivery, the greater the interest of the state to protect the child. And it was the Justices on the court that weighed the scale. Even more disturbing was the fact that Blackmun declared the right to an abortion while readily admitting the court was clueless as to when life begins. Thus, many pro-life activists decry the decision as yielding state-sanctioned executions of innocents and have spent the last thirty years trying to undo the damage inflicted by the decision.
Traditionally, there are only three ways that Supreme Court precedent can be overturned-by the Court's decision to reverse itself, the President's refusal to enforce the decision or by Constitutional amendment. All methods, however, are rare and/or cumbersome. The California congressman, though, argues that Blackmun's uncertainty surrounding life's beginnings provides Congress a fourth option in reversing Roe; one that does not require Congress to jump through the hurdles presented by the Amendment process or be dependent on the Court or the President.
"In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ... refused to determine when life begins and therefore found nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment," stated Hunter. Hunter points out that "in the decision...the Court did concede that, 'if the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.'" It is here that Hunter sees the way out of Roe.
According to the text of the Right to Life Act, the Act seeks "To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person." Further, the Act holds "The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being."
"Considering Congress has the constitutional authority to uphold the 14th Amendment, coupled by the fact that the Court admitted that that if personhood were to be established, the unborn would be protected, it can be concluded that [Congress] has the authority to determine when life begins," argued Hunter.
Stephen Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, a pro-family public interest law firm based in Tupelo, Mississippi, agrees that the Right to Life Act would pass constitutional muster. Furthermore, Crampton asserts that such an act is necessary for the federal courts have adopted the view that a fetus is not a person.
"In the cases subsequent to Roe, many constitutional scholars have commented on the fact that not one member of the Court has disagreed with the conclusion of the pro-abortion lobby that denies personhood to the unborn." Crampton further adds, "In terms of arguing personhood to the bench, such a legal position has been rejected and is dead on arrival."
To support his claim, Crampton points to the concurring opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (1986). In that case, which struck down portions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, Justice Stevens wrote that even those Justices who frequently dissent on Roe-related cases have not embraced the "religious view" that a fetus is a person. Thus, Crampton believes that the pro-life movement "will not get anywhere in court by arguing a fetus is a person."
It is for that very reason Crampton feels that the Right to Life Act is necessary to protect the unborn. The Act finds it legal support on four constitutional provisions that enable Congress to flex its political muscle. Hunter argues that the first section of the 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life and the fifth section provides Congress "the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this amendment."
Hunter also contends that the Act is supported by the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from denying a person life. Finally Hunter argues that the Act is in accordance with Article I, sec. 8 of the Constitution, which bestows to Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper.
If the Act passes both houses of Congress and is signed by the president, the result would be that unborn children, from the moment of conception, would be afforded the same constitutional rights and protections as individuals that are born. Thus, the precedent established by Roe would be effectively overturned, for the law would recognize the unborn as human beings. Even more importantly, the Act would overturn Roe without having to return the issue to the states. "Once this law is enacted and becomes federal law," states Crampton, "the unborn are bestowed the rights of personhood and any state permitting abortion on demand would no longer be able to infringe on the constitutional rights of the unborn child." Hence, no state could have a law that permits abortion.
Not all members of Congress are supportive of the act. Joe Sestak, Democratic Congressman for the 7th District of Pennsylvania, responded to Hunter's bill by stating "In 1973, the Supreme Court guaranteed a woman's right to choose abortion with its landmark decision Roe v. Wade. Over the past 34 years since Roe v. Wade, the Court has repeatedly upheld Roe's core principles. Regardless of my religious beliefs, I support that decision that the United States should offer every woman the right to have a legal and safe abortion, if that is her personal choice."
Chaka Fattah, Democratic Congressman for the 2nd District of Pennsylvania was also contacted, but was still reviewing the bill and did not comment at this time.
To Hunter, though, the Act is not about choice, but putting "our unborn children on the same legal standing as all other persons."
Would that be like a one term governor from a Lib State?
Do you have auto insurance?
What you say about Romney's telegenic looks is spot-on. He's a great speaker, but what little I've seen of Hunter on CSPAN, he could hold his own in a debate as well.
Romney wouoldn't be as good as either Hunter or Tancredo on immigration, but he would be better than any other candidate declared so far. He also "gets it" about the War on Terror, which is only a slightly longer list than those who "get it" on immigration.
Reagan Democrats in a Reagan election year in Reagan's home state. Dont think that played a role do we. Again after several hundred posts on several threads I'm still waiting to hear who Duncan Hunter is and what he has done that qualifies him to be president of the United States. If it's just his beliefs, give me Laura Inghram rather than some old politician.
Still waiting. Who is Duncan Hunter and why should anyone besides his mother consider him Presidential material?
Clinton, as governor of Ark. was also part of the DLC and a regular at the Renaissance Weekend. He had also given the into to the presidential speech at the Dem convention of '88.
Even I knew who Clinton was, years before he ran.
Today, even on FR< people are saying "Duncan WHO?"
100% agreed.
The fact that you don't like him is enough for me.
And I don't mind Hunter supporters trying to educate us as to who he is, what he stands for, what he has done, and why we should support him.
I just think they should keep the "RINO" and "TRUE conservatives" comments to a minimum, if they don't want to alienate potential supporters so early in the game.
I donated and volunteered.
I hope someone calls to ask for my help.
I don't know if I would vote for him or not but not being part of the elite we keep hearing about is a plus IMO.
"Somebody tell me in 25 words of less why Duncan Hunter should be President of the United States?"
Duncan Hunter is one of our 5 San Diego Congressmen.
14 terms in congress. Former Chairman of the Armed Services Comm. and supported by the military.
He reps. a County with the largest amount of mililtary in the US and also with Mexico at the Southern border of San Diego, he has done more than anyone in congress re the Fence and other measure throughout the years on border issues.
Hunter has been on many National news talk shows and yrs. of C-SPAN.
He has convictions, not expediency.
Also he is a Vietnam war vet and his son 2 tours in Iraq as a Marine.
His National and World Affairs experience exceeded many who are running
I would like to know more about him.
I can accept that. But I think the public is going to want to know who is Duncan Hunter and why should I care. Do you really think the mainstream media is going to say anything about him unless they have some dirt or a less than flattering soundbite?
Great campaign strategy. Ad hominems, posioning the well. Ever hear what Abe Lincoln said about flies and honey? If you want to drum up support for Hunter, you may want to read:
If you can't be positive about your guy without going negative on everyone else, you won't get too far.
I didnt know we were at peace, that we had border security, that abortions were illegal, etc. When did Hunter bring these to fruition. I must have been sleeping. Hell, anyone can make a speech. I'm doing it right now. Does that make me presidential caliber. I wouldnt vote for me.
As a conservative, or someone who posts on a conservative website, I would have expected you to at least give lip-service to the notion of personal responsibility and to also have the ability to read. However, since you insist upon being force-fed everything and refuse to do a simple search for yourself, here's a list of why I think Duncan Hunter should be President. (And it is probably more than 25 words, but I doubt you'd actually take the time to count them since you weren’t' really expecting an answer anyway.
Rep. Hunter is a Vietnam Veteran who served in the airborne and Rangers. He has been a member of the Armed Services Committee his entire Congressional Career and chaired the Committee since 2002- essential since the beginning of the War on Terror. His dedication to providing for a strong defense of the country has extended beyond traditional serviceman/woman issues as he also fights to protect against the exportation of industrial trades which might threaten the viability of US national security.
Rep. Hunter believes in, and has been in the forefront of the fight for, protecting the borders. He espouses his believes in a non-racist, legal, populist view that will resonate with people from non-border states as well as with those from traditional border communities.
Finally, Rep. Hunter is a family man who has been married for 33 years, has two sons (one in the military) and several grandchildren. He is pro-life and makes no excuses about his stance. The people who work for him respect him and look up to him as a role model and a leader and he's willing to take this monumental step because he believes he can best serve the country by taking this chance.
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.