21 Weeks
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]
Thank you!
But even if that were true, the law once made a distinction that allowed you to own an African. The exact procedure by which some evil bag of garbage in a black robe determines it should be legal to rip a small child limb from limb has no more bearing on this discussion than the evil that allowed people to employ Africans as automatic cotton-harvesting machines.
Go over to DU if you want to serve up that stupidity. Ripping a small child's limbs off is not a conservative activity, and neither is apologizing for it, which you are heavily engaged in on this thread.
I'm pretty sure you're screwing that up. What they said is that you have to be pro-life to be a true conservative.
Katrina’s feeling very bad!
You are so right! What would have happened on this if <shudder> Al Gore would have been president? </shudder> What would have happened if <shudder> John F'n Kerry would have been president? </shudder> What would have happened if <twitch> John McCain would have been president? </twitch>
Anybody who has credibly contended for the job since 2000 would have been worse than GWB on just about any topic you can mention. If we sign up to the defeatism and negativism blasted daily into the ears and eyes of the unwashed by the MSM, we are truly hosed in 2008.
Ideological purity is great fun if you like to lose every time, viz the Libertarians.
” In other words, the fact that the law won’t stop a single abortion is pretty much why it was upheld.”
Uh no, did you actually read the opinion? Kennedy specifically mentions how it might encourage some women to carry their pregnancies to full-term.
“All for the sake of a ban that won’t stop a single abortion. Yippee.”
Misleading to say the least. As I said before, Kennedy clearly believes that this will discourage some women from getting late-term abortions. I think he’s right. Therefore, I believe it DOES have the effect of saving some lives.
It may be unanswerable, but why?
What a great decision! The majority will sleep well tonight, while the ghouls will be tossing in their sleep.
Wow...feel the paranoia!
Wow...Look who the Sheeple voters in America made Senate Majority Leader last November!
You're absolutely wrong there. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and no more than that amendment. That means Congress can stop states from violating a woman's right to abortion. Even if someday in the future the 14th no longer protects such a right, and even if an unborn child were protected as a 14th Amendment "person", Congress could then --at most-- prevent state actors from performing abortions. "No State" means exactly what it says: No State. It doesn't mean "No citizen" or "No doctor". In other words, the 14th Amendment -- like most of the Constitution -- restrains *government*, not private citizens. It never has and never will give Congress the power to regulate the behavior of non-government actors. Which is why conservatives are stuck grasping at the straws of the commerce clause and playing let's pretend. So much for the lie that we just want to overturn Roe and send the matter back to the states. Yeah right.
Good grief. No doubt she said that with a straight face too. "It seems rather odd for this Court to be concerned about stepping on the toes of the states." LOL and touché Justice Scalia.
You have no way of knowing that any more than Kennedy does. Besides, I'm not an ends justifies the means kind of person. So even if this law actually stops an abortion or two, I still wouldn't support it. Either we stick to the Constitution and return abortion to the states or we're no better than liberals. We can't have it both ways.
No doubt the commerce clause issue will be raised in a future case. We all know why the supporters of abortion didn’t really fight on that issue.
As for the SCOTUS, I just don’t see the votes. Scalia is extremely shaky on that issue as demonstrated by his vote in Raich. His decision to join the concurrence today likely means very little given his history. Of the three dissenters in Raich, only Thomas remains on the Court. Souter would not flip-flop on the issue just because it had to do with abortion. Breyer wouldn’t either. Ginsburg and Stevens are the only two that I can see seriously flip-flopping (and no doubt somehow managing to keep a straight face the whole time). It looks to me that, at most, there are three votes for striking it down for the reasons you suggest.
Also, I doubt any lower federal appeals court is going to strike down the ban on those grounds. My hunch is that such a challenge will never make it to SCOTUS.
Go away.
In California if you kill an unborn fetus in an attack on the mother, it is murder.
The difference between a murder and a "procedure" in California depends upon whether or not the perpetrator has a medical license.
In the face of a clearly viable human being, you say so what?
If that child is a living human, you are saying the right to murder is a states’ right.
I don’t like where that is going to in face of the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness!
In the face of a clearly viable human being, you say so what?
If that child is a living human, you are saying the right to murder is a states’ right.
I don’t like where that is going to in face of the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness!
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.