Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Some of you must be ticked off that Rudy agrees with this great ruling.....
Abortion is deliberately ending a human life. That is also known as murder. If you are for abortion, you support murder and murders.
I mentioned only single-issue voters on abortion, not "most people."
Two words - 14th amendment.
The part of the Dred Scott decision that actually affected the person, Dred Scott, was constitutionally sound. Under the constitution (due to compromise to ensure ratification), slaves were treated differently and individual states have never had the power to grant citizenship.
What makes the Dred Scott decision so notable is Taney's idiotic decision to editorialize and say that blacks were inferior to white and so forth. Apparently he had hopes that this would end the slavery debate once and for all.
Then you haven't been following this thread.
And you didn't follow the thread enough to properly understand it.
The political consensus in DC would never lead to a federal law banning first trimester abortion for adult women. This partial birth thing is a whole different ball of wax - especially when viability can be scientifically demonstrated at 20+ weeks.
The States is where this belongs, for many reasons. The country is too divided to have a uniform abortion law (again, we’re talking about adult women before 20 weeks). Let the States have a crack at it, let’s see what political consensus they can hold for State based bans. Send it to the States, and this will also free the national Republican party from the litmus test on this issue, so we can focus on other issues regarding government.
The “personhood” of the unborn is not recognized in U.S. law...
That was another one of Harry Blackmun's factual errors, to say nothing of his bizarre and tortured misunderstanding of even basic grammar, logic, science or philosophy. It was not and still is not correct, even currently. See for example Steinberg v. Brown, 321 F. Supp. 741, 745-47 (N.D. Ohio 1970) or Commonwealth v. Cass, 392 Mass. 799, 801, 467 N.E.2d 1324, 1325 (1984) (construing vehicular homicide statute). Even if it were correct, though, and it is not, it might also be that there aren't any cases holding newborn infants to be persons. Does that mean therefore that they are not? Positivist notions of law such as this are alien and completely antithetical to the natural law concepts of the Framers of the Constitution.
Since when does the law create natural persons or the inalienable rights of natural persons? Are natural persons natural persons only by virtue of being recognized by some statute or case law?
Human beings are not persons because they can prove that they should be included as persons under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; they are already included as persons by virtue of their humanity.
Since when do courts have the power or authority to create substantive exceptions to fundamental rights where no such exceptions appear in the Constitution, and where such exceptions abrogate the inalienable rights of natural persons?
Cordially,
Most of us see through Rudy's agreement as nothing but pandering on his part, given he supported Clinton's veto of a PBA ban.
You didn't read my statement. The Declaration of Independence framed the argument by which we based our claim to freedom from the crown. The argument was that we have rights, by God, and that no human authority can justly infringe upon them.
It was on the basis of that argument that slavery was abolished.
And it will be on that basis that abortion will be banned.
You wish to argue that human beings can determine the value of life. Did you think through where that premise leads?
Don't know about the House, but surely it was the Dems that ran as conservatives that stayed Reid from calling for more gun control after VA Tech. Maybe not -- maybe Reid's just against hysterical screaming for more gun control (but I doubt it!). ;-)
This is not inconsistent. It's possible to be opposed to a law without believing it's unconstitutional.
I completely agree with you here.
I don’t really want Rudy if another more conservative winner shows up... but will definitely prefer him to most of the lib Demodogs.
You're not getting my point. That fact that most people feel that Roe is safe allows otherwise pro-abortion voters feel safe to use other issues to decide their vote.
Once these voters get the feeling that Roe is under serious attack and close to falling then these voters are going to suddenly become single-issue voters.
Most of the women I know don't think much about abortion but want the right to chose for themselves. Even so, they currently vote GOP because of the perception that it is the less socialistic party.
If they began to believe that Roe was about to fall then they would become single-issue voters and go for the dems.
Great post.
He was born April 20, 1920 — so that would make him 87 in a couple of days.
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.