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

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; calcowgirl
Perhaps it wasn't quite as bad as we thought, even in 1967... only the results were.

If the '67 law wasn't bad(I haven't seen the full text of the law), how could the results be bad?

2,080 posted on 04/22/2007 10:03:55 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1809 | View Replies ]


To: FreeReign; calcowgirl; The_Eaglet
If the '67 law wasn't bad(I haven't seen the full text of the law), how could the results be bad?

One phrase stands out... "health of the mother".

In 1967, what Ronald Reagan meant by "health" was "genuine physical endangerment to the health of the mother". In 2007, what Liberals mean by "health" is "mental health, economic health, financial health, stress, unhappiness, inability to get a date on Friday Night... et cetera." They can -- and do -- drive a truck through the Exception made by Reagan in 1967.

Ron Paul seeks to overturn Roe vs. Wade and return Lawmaking over Abortion-murder to the proper Authority of the States.

The sad example of Ronald Reagan in 1967 simply demonstrates the need for absolute precision in Lawmaking -- "give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile". We need to write State Law statutes to allow Abortion only to protect the LIFE of the Mother -- genuine physical endangerment of her continued physical life.

2,165 posted on 04/22/2007 10:35:00 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (Please Ping or FReepMail me to be added to the Great Ron Paul Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2080 | 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