Posted on 06/18/2007 2:19:35 PM PDT by wagglebee
Thank you for the ping and for sharing your insights!
Well, yes, and just as strongly, or more so, as any of the other GOP contenders.
Why don't we just look at some of the things that Roody has REALLY said:
"I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights," Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing," he responded.
- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999
"Ultimately I believe it's an individual right and a woman should make that choice."
- Apr 4, 2007
"Where I stand on abortion is, I oppose it. I don't like it. I hate it. I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against.
"However, I believe in a woman's right to choose."
- Hannity & Colmes, Feb 5, 2007
"But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
- Phil Donahue Show, 1989
no, you have it all wrong. rudy was FOR abortion before he was AGAINST it.
Was that before or after he was having sex with his COUSIN?
A common assumption, but one that pro-lifers must discard. Here's why.
Number one:
The Fourteenth Amendment makes abortion a national, all-or-nothing issue. Either the unborn are protected by it, or the woman has the right to dispose of her baby like any appendage. In either case, states are bound to respect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, to protect the liberty of the mom OR the life of the baby. There is no middle ground.
Even Roe vs. Wade admits this constitutional dilemma, as Lexinom quoted in 84. As we all know, the Court ruled incorrectly, and sided with progressive, radical voices that pretend the baby is nothing more than a blob of tissue in the womb. Only an acknowledgment of the child's personhood could change that, and thereby overturn Roe.
Number two:
It is faulty to suggest that the Court overturn Roe on any other grounds than the personhood of the unborn. For that to be true, the Constitution must be warped another direction, as though the Supreme Court cannot acknowledge un-enumerated rights, in violation of the Ninth Amendment, and the states can encroach upon the liberty of women. (After all, if the unborn child has no rights, personhood, or intrinsic value, there is no justification for denying a woman liberty and privacy with regard to her body.) We might as well have no national government or Constitution.
Number three:
You are correct that folks like Scalia cannot be counted on to take the lead for the personhood of the unborn, but he is reasonable enough to vote correctly if presented with the opportunity and leadership from others on the bench. Do you have confidence someone like Fred or Mitt would appoint the needed justice who understands abortion is not a state matter, and would rule the unborn are protected by the Constitution? These individuals have already stated otherwise, that their preference is justices who would allow the states the option to permit abortion.
Number four:
As for that belief, that the ideal is to "return to the matter to the states," here's a thought. Pre-Roe, the whole notion that states (or anyone) could allow killing of unborn babies was a new proposition, never before settled in law. This clash with the Constitution, in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, was obvious to sound minds such as Judge Adrian Burke, whose thundering dissent from the early pro-abortion case in New York (1972) exposed the radical idea of abortion rights in the states as a new evil. At that time, states were beginning to eliminate the unborn from protection, even through supposed "pro-life" laws that legalized abortion for physical deformities and mental health and rape issues with the mother--creating a new injustice that put unborn children in a lesser class, without inherent rights.
The idea that we should somehow return to that era, this time with the federal government's APPROVAL for the erroneous belief among some states that the unborn are less-than-human, is perhaps the worst result possible, as it gives permanence to the logic that gave us legal abortion. In fact, it was the states' denial of the right to life of the unborn that provided the rationalization the Supreme Court needed for Doe vs. Bolton.
Think about it. To say the states can allow abortion at will is a concession to the pro-abortion argument that unborn children are sub-human and do not fall under the same protections afforded the rest of us in the Fourteenth Amendment. Once we make that abhorrent concession, we remove any basis whatsoever for outlawing abortion. Why propagate the lie that the unborn are less-than human??
If the best we could hope for is to make this a state matter, where the unborn are exempt from constitutional protection, then our union is over, our Constitution is dead, and the rights of no one are safe. That may sound dramatic, but it is the logical extension.
Thanks very much.
As I have always believed and stated, I know that the unborn are persons that should receive equal protection under the law.
But here is the whole problem: Scalia absolutely wants to overturn Roe AND return abortion to the States to decide. He is clear that from the bench he does not see the unborn as Constitutional persons and that it’s a States issue and the Mother’s moral decision. And yet he’s absolutely against abortion Personally. He truly is an Originalist in the most complete sense of the word.
So if Roe is overturned there still could be a Constitutional Amendment or other legislative act that finally and officially recognizes the unborn as “persons”. It could take years but it's possible. But we are world’s away from the latter and only 1-2 votes on the High Court from the former.
For anyone who missed this:
“John Hawkins: Would you like to see Roe v. Wade overturned?
Duncan Hunter: Yes. You know, I’m the author of the personhood-at-conception bill which right now has over 100 co-sponsors ...that would define personhood as moment of conception, so, it would allow us to have a reversal of the effects of Roe v. Wade without a constitutional amendment.”
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=114155
“Prior to Roe each State decided for themselves.”
Yes, like the state that I live in - New York State.
It is so disturbing that even if Roe is overturned, some states will still have legal abortions.
“Neither then-Justice William Rehnquist nor the late Justice Byron White, both of whom dissented in Roe, took issue with the Court’s holding that the unborn child is not a constitutional person.”
But with today’s technology, it is obvious that the preborn baby is a person. These are different times.
http://www.cwcobgyn.com/images/4dpics_3.jpg
ULTRASOUND OF PREBORN BABY PIX
Gore, kennedy and kerry have all claimed to be pro-life in past. Hillary walks around trying to have it both ways saying we should encourage alternatives, but she’s pro-choice. Rudy’s no different than any of them. They adjust their stances to meet the market they are catering too. but I wouldn’t trust him in the oval making a decision as to who sits on the SC. Rudy himself said while he thought Alito was a fine judge, and defended the nomination and his mind, he wouldn’t have picked him. Red neon sign flashing here folks.
At best he’d choose an O’Connor. That’s not good enough. Not only was she a liberal on many cultural issues, but her opinions were a mess from a legalistic standpoint. One could make it a career just trying to make sense of her opinions. Alito practically did, if anyone remembers his cases. he tried to tailer his opinions to meet her legal criteria because she was often the swing judge. And STILL she would reverse herself when his decided opinions came before the Court.
It does not seem to matter to Scalia. He is, with Thomas, the most pro-life we’ve ever had. I don’t see it getting better than them: Overturn Roe yes personhood NO.
A good person can be 100% pro-life, plus extraordinarily intelligent and educated, but that doesn’t make their interpetations infallible, I think you would agree.
I have understood since college that overturning Roe would mean the issue would be returned to the states.
I am trying to understand if the article is claiming that's the best we can do or suggesting pro-lifers advocate for a life amendment, because none of the justices believe the constitution protects life from the moment of conception.
Yes, that's the way I see it too. Which is the reason this election is so crucial.
Allowing the States to decide is what the Founding Fathers intended.
IMHO, what will eventually happen is that conservative States will prosper and liberal States will flounder.
So, since we know that "encouraging adoption" didn't equal "reduce abortions" in the past, how exactly *is* Rudy going to reduce abortions? By doing something he never ever did as mayor---using the bully pulpit to repeatedly encourage women not to abort?
He doesn't have it in him. He's a total abortion advocate. And this business about "reducing abortions" rings as hollow as when Hillary Clinton tried it last year. Why should I believe him any more than her?
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.
