Posted on 07/27/2011 7:01:25 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States' Rights Issue Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure. “You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, 'We’d rather not have states decide that.'” The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
July 27, 2011 8:32 PM
ABC News' Arlette Saenz (@arlettesaenz) reports:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Yeah, but suppose a state or more de-criminalized murder, made murder legal. Do you think the fed gov should intervene or just say "States' rights, s'okay"?
Making abortion a States' rights issue is exactly the same.
He’s as WRONG on this as is KHOW’s talk show host, Dan Caplis!!
Yes I do.
But there are many Americans who do not. And if I desire to bring the power of the government to bear against them, I have to have the law solidly on my side. Just saying, "I am right and they are wrong" does not suffice.
Read Blackmun's .... once the unborn baby's personhood is established .. arguments in favor of abortion collapses
That's quite correct. So what we are discussing is whether, under the law as now written, personhood is established.
You and some freepers may believe it is. I and other freepers may believe it is not.
The GOP platform, which calls for Congressional validation of the unborn as persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, is an entirely appropriate position, and it's regrettable that the GOP has failed to address it when it has held control of Congress.
As we all know, words have consequences. I try not to present something as an actual quote unless, you know, it is one.
Too bad you can’t actually rebut anything that I said. Instead you post smoke and mirrors.
It's just not relevant to the discussion of whether or not the unborn are persons under current law.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they do. Murder is a matter of State law, not federal. Likewise rape, robbery, assault, fraud, burglary ...
States rights has absolutely nothing to do with the marxist agenda. They don’t care what the Constitution says. You cannot fight them using it.
If the other side uses the Constitution as toilet paper, must I do so as well?
Arguing state's rights on abortion is an exercise in futility. Rid government of the marxists and you may have a shot.
If the state refuses to protect the child, then it is effectively denying them of its right to life. The 14th Amendment has been used when writing Federal legislation intended to protect blacks against lynching and other crimes by private citizens against life, liberty, and property.
And what were the results of allowing each state to determine personhood?
It caused a great divide in the nation. It led to the end of slavery, but also, because the states' rights folks were on the wrong side that time, it also led to strong central governmentalists winning the day.
Another such divide with the states' rights folks on the side of Life...the side of God...could well lead us back to a far better middle ground.
Would it lead to war? Perhaps, but I don't think so. It will lead to some kind of revolution. And the way government in America operates will be changed.
I continue to think that the red states legally banning abortions is a GOOD thing. Any life saved is a life saved.
Perry is a RINO and a narcissist in the form of Obama. He is incredibly wrong here and his position is a cop-out. Life is an unalienable right and states do not grant unalienable rights.
See #214.
Perry is not anything like Obama.
In any case, I would trade the current status of abortion with that in which it was a state-by-state decision. It would be step forward as soon as even one state decided against abortion.
In NY State abortion was legal before Roe v. Wade.
And should slavery also be a states’ rights issue?
I think most people would not say abortion is a Tenth Amendment issue if over a million Americans THEIR age were murdered each year.
Nonsense.
The Jews murdered at the death camps were all murdered legally. The babies murdered in the womb are murdered legally.
If you allow the State to determine when the word “murder” may be used, you are left with no defense when the State wishes to murder people.
Nonsense.
The Jews murdered at the death camps were all murdered legally. The babies murdered in the womb are murdered legally.
If you allow the State to determine when the word “murder” may be used, you are left with no defense when the State wishes to murder people.
In 1865, the meanings of the words “former slave,” “negro,” and “person” were precisely what they are today.
The authors of the amendment wrote “person.”
The “intent” I said was irrelevant was the supposed intent to protect the rights of ONLY former slaves or negroes. That may have been the primary purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the word “person” was chosen, not “former slave” or “negro.”
Murder is not illegal killing. Murder is UNJUST killing.
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.