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

To: michigander
I'm assuming you have references for that?

I don't make a habit of making assertions I cannot back-up

Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation

Ronald Reagan

Ronald Reagan, while sitting as the fortieth president of the United States, sent us this article shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade; we printed it with pride in our Spring, 1983 issue, and reprint it now, after Roe's twentieth anniversary, just as proudly.

The 10th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is a good time for us to pause and reflect. Our nationwide policy of abortion-on-demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people nor enacted by our legislators— not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. But the consequences of this judicial decision are now obvious: since 1973, more than 15 million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by legalized abortions. That is over ten times the number of Americans lost in all our nation's wars.

Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.

730 posted on 03/29/2002 7:26:12 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 721 | View Replies ]


To: Texasforever
I don't make a habit of making assertions I cannot back-up

I know you don't. Thanks.

By failing to attemp to bring cases charging abortion providers with whatever law he felt they were breaking, I have no choice except to consider him a traitor to his own priciples.

I would feel the same way, if the supremes happen to not throw out the 30/60 day restrictions, and the President executes that portion of the law by bringing charges against someone for breaking it or fails to immediately pardon someone convicted of breaking it.

736 posted on 03/30/2002 6:56:50 AM PST by michigander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 730 | 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