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

Skip to comments.

BREAKING: House to vote on 20-week abortion ban Jan 22: Roe anniversary, date of March for Life
Jill Stanek ^ | 1.12.2015 | Jill Stanek

Posted on 01/12/2015 1:47:26 PM PST by Morgana

From Politico this morning, in an article entitled, “GOP hopes it’s cracked the abortion code: Republicans unite around a push to ban the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy”:

… GOP leaders plan to vote on a federal 20-week abortion ban on Jan. 22. That’s the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade and falls on the same day as the March for Life….

In the House, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) opted to tie the upcoming vote to the March for Life event after meeting with leading anti-abortion groups and Republicans who have long been vocal opponents of abortion.

McCarthy met in November with a dozen conservative groups, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Susan B. Anthony List, and “reiterated his commitment to the pro-life movement and vowed to ensure that the House of Representatives would be in session and voting during the 2015 March for Life,” a GOP staffer said.

The Politico article notes, “60% of Americans support the 20-week ban, according to Quinnipiac, and Democrats are evenly divided on that specific proposal.”

So, battling a ban against abortion past 20 weeks is a loser for abortion proponents and Democrats. Even so, they’re absurdly trying, for instance, National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill , who said, according to Politico:

“If you say ‘viability,’ that’s the time where a fetus can live independently outside of the womb. That’s 24 to 26 weeks. But most people don’t know that. So when you just say, ‘Oh, do you want to ban abortion at 20 weeks?’ People go ‘Yeah, that’s really late!’ No, it’s not. And most people don’t know that it’s not late.”

First, the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics have established viability at either 23 weeks or 400 grams (14 ounces). Politico could and should have corrected O’Neill’s obvious attempt to dehumanize 20-weekers.

7148415_f260Second, 5 months is “not late”? Does O’Neill really want to go there? Does she really want us to start talking about the advanced development of a 20-week-old preborn baby? I think not. Just goes to show the other side’s uphill path.

And the number of perfectly healthy babies aborted past 20 weeks amounts to over 18,000 annually, or 49 a day, counter to another of the other side’s claims that they are “rare.”

The pro-abortion American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists embarrasses itself by trying to claim, as quoted by Politico, that 20-week-old preborns do not feel pain, when even younger babies, 18-weekers, are now routinely anesthetized if undergoing surgery.

The abortion lobby is right about one thing. As Planned Parenthood indicated, a bill to ban abortion after 20 weeks is a “clear attempt to challenge Roe v. Wade.”

It does this two ways.

First, H. R. 36 redraws the line after which abortions would be restricted. At present, the line is viability, according to Roe.

Second, H. R. 36 severely narrows the broad health exception defined in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, which was:

… in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.

This health exception has basically allowed abortion on demand throughout all 40 weeks of pregnancy since 1973. H. R. 36’s health exception as:

… substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, not including psychological or emotional conditions, of the pregnant woman.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 20weekabortionban; 20weekbill; abortion; house; prolife; vote
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: Arthur McGowan
I think you have "person" mixed up with "citizen." The Supreme Court GRATUITOUSLY asserted that an unborn baby is not a "person within the meaning of the 14th amendment."

Nothing the Supreme Court does is gratuitous - don't be naive.

Person is defined in the statutes as equivalent to individual and varieties of corporations and government employees. That's just a fact.

A natural person is not a statutory "person." A "person" is an incorporated natural person, ie one with representational authority to, or of, a corporate body, including being an employee of the United States itself.

Birth certificates are only required of incorporated individuals, and establish a presumption of incorporation of a minor. Citizens are individuals who have pledged allegiance to the country. They are different from native-born Americans, who need no declarations or vows to establish their God-given rights under the Constitution.

41 posted on 01/13/2015 1:52:11 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I still think you are mixing up “citizen” and “person.”

The Congress could FIND that every natural person (i.e., every human organism) is a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Having been BORN, irrelevant. Having certain kinds of parents, irrelevant. Having been born in certain places, irrelevant. All that stuff about incorporation is totally irrelevant.


42 posted on 01/13/2015 3:07:40 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

I don’t know what you think “gratuitous” means, but it doesn’t mean “without any motive.” Of course the USSC had a motive; they wanted to “legalize” abortion.

When I said their assertion that the unborn child is not a “person” is “gratuitous,” I meant that they asserted it without any BASIS, without any RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

It was, as Rehnquist wrote, an “exercise of raw judicial power.”


43 posted on 01/13/2015 3:10:55 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
The Congress could FIND that every natural person (i.e., every human organism) is a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Having been BORN, irrelevant. Having certain kinds of parents, irrelevant. Having been born in certain places, irrelevant. All that stuff about incorporation is totally irrelevant.

You are 100% totally, absolutely wrong. These are established legal definitions, not open to change. The entirety of American statutory law depends on them. If Congress "voted" to change these definitions, the legal system would collapse. You have no idea what you are talking about.

44 posted on 01/13/2015 3:24:58 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
When I said their assertion that the unborn child is not a “person” is “gratuitous,” I meant that they asserted it without any BASIS, without any RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

The basis was to explicitly limit the applicability of the decision to the limitations of the legal definition of a "14th Amendment person." I have already described those limitations in my previous post. In doing this, the Court was being EXTREMELY rational - it made sure that there could be NO OTHER APPLICATION of its ruling.

Roberts did the same thing with his Obamacare ruling - explicit statements of LIMITED jurisdictional application.

45 posted on 01/13/2015 3:28:18 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Talisker

So tell me: What categories of unborn babies are people NOT allowed to abort?


46 posted on 01/13/2015 4:20:17 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
So tell me: What categories of unborn babies are people NOT allowed to abort?

If you're talking about the law, then I would say it does not address "people" at all, because that is a word that is invoked by the original Constitution ("We the People") before statutory law was generally adopted.

Statutory law is codified - it's literally a code. It uses common words, but gives them specific, uncommon meanings. That's the little "secret" you learn in law school.

For example, the plumbing code will talk about, "any person who does x or y or z has to have a plumbing license, pass inspections, blah, blah, blah..." But in the definitions section, or elsewhere in the plumbing code, there will be something that says the subject matter of the code is licensed plumbers. Well, that means that if you're not a licensed plumber, then the "person" indicated by the plumbing code isn't you.

Nevertheless, people still get charged under the plumbing code anyway, and then they're asked, "well, are you a person, or not?" And of course, not knowing any of this code crap, they say they are. Then the authorities get to use that against them, because they "claimed" they are subject to the plumbing code.

It's an open secret. ALL the codes are like this. And incorporation is HOW they do it, because a corporation is not made by God - it's made by the government. And so the government claims the right to absolutely control what corporations can do - and what their employees and investors and officers can do.

That's it, that's all of it. That's American law. It's stunningly simple, it's applied to literally everything, everybody believes it addresses everyone and - it doesn't. But try telling that to someone! You want to see people really pissed off, show them they're already free.

Whatever. Believe what you want - everyone does anyway, LOL!

47 posted on 01/13/2015 4:33:12 PM PST by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

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.

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