Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

** Action Alert ** Petition to Reverse Roe v. Wade !!
PetitionOnline ^ | 15 July 2002 | David C. Osborne

Posted on 07/16/2002 11:58:42 AM PDT by davidosborne

To: U.S. Government

CITIZEN PETITION TO REVERSE ROE V. WADE .........

WHEREAS: Because of Roe v. Wade, millions of unborn children have died through abortion; and

WHEREAS: In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it could not resolve "the difficult question of when life begins" -- and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new "right to abortion" based on a "right of privacy"; and

WHEREAS: The 14th Amendment to the Constitution
states: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law"; and

WHEREAS: In Roe, the Supreme Court
admitted: "If....personhood [for the unborn] is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guarnteed specifically by the [fourteenth] Amendment..." (Roe v. Wade [410 US 113 at 156-7]) ; and

WHEREAS: Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being, gentically neither "part" of either parent, is formed; and

WHEREAS: The American people oppose abortion-on-demand and want innocent human life to be protected especially when it is most defenseless; and

WHEREAS: It belongs to Congress to resolve the question the Supreme Court said IT cannot resolve; and

WHEREAS: A Life at Conception Act, by declaring unborn children are Persons entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying through abortion-on-demand;

THEREFORE: I urge you to cast every vote for a Life at Conception Act, and to do everything possible to bring it to a full vote in the U.S. House and Senate in this session of Congress.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; humanrights; roe; roevwade; theendofroe
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next last

1 posted on 07/16/2002 11:58:42 AM PDT by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: /\XABN584; 10mm; 3D-JOY; 75thOVI; 5Madman; <1/1,000,000th%; 11B3; 1Peter2:16; ...
Passing it on... Click here to sign petition......
2 posted on 07/16/2002 12:00:51 PM PDT by davidosborne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: homeschool mama; rintense; Howlin; Miss Marple; SpookBrat; Khepera; EODGUY; Dakmar; Mo1; ...
Bumping and pinging.
3 posted on 07/16/2002 12:07:24 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
A Life at Conception Act, by declaring unborn children are Persons entitled to constitutional protection, will rescue millions of unborn children from dying through abortion-on-demand;

Unless this Act is actually a constitutional amendment, I can't see how this statement is true.

4 posted on 07/16/2002 12:10:01 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Unless this Act is actually a constitutional amendment, I can't see how this statement is true.

Agreed. We need a Right to Life amendment to the Constitution.

The founding fathers were wise beyond belief. They put up the Constitution, The Bill Of Rights. All very good.

They also gave us the means to change things if need be.

And we need to change this 'abortion' thing.

5 posted on 07/16/2002 12:14:56 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Unless this Act is actually a constitutional amendment, I can't see how this statement is true.

That's what I was about to say. You can't overturn Supreme Court decisions by just passing a law contradicting it.

6 posted on 07/16/2002 12:15:16 PM PDT by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brad's Gramma
Thanks for the heads up, B's G!
7 posted on 07/16/2002 12:17:26 PM PDT by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dakmar
Yerwelcome! Just pass this thread on. Copy & paste and send to all in your Address Book.

How ya doing?????? It's been a looooong time!
8 posted on 07/16/2002 12:18:47 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OneidaM; Utah Girl
Pingaling.....please put this on ATRW??!! Thanks!

I need to sign off and make it appear as if I've done something today.

Gulp.
9 posted on 07/16/2002 12:19:59 PM PDT by Brad’s Gramma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; LibKill; Dan Day
Unless this Act is actually a constitutional amendment, I can't see how this statement is true.

What about this:

Roe V. Wade decision explicitly says something like "we(the court) can not determine where life begins" and then went onto base their decision upon "privacy" and other bunk. If a federal law is made that defines constitutional protection at birth, then the only thing that could happen, is that the law is challeneged and goes before the SCOTUS. Not that they have to consider Roe V. Wade, but if they(the court) do, then the entire basis for the previous decision is shot down based upon the new federal law. Roe V. Wade would be meaningless. I'm not sure how the SCOTUS could find that such a law is "unconstitutional", given that it specifically deals with the question that the previous SCOTUS avoided at all costs.

Am I not looking at this correctly?

10 posted on 07/16/2002 12:22:46 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Well, if memory serves me, the Roe vs. Wade decison spoke of a 'prenumba' (shadow, in plain English) of privacy under the fourth amendment.

This is wrong. The Bill of Rights was in plain English, no p!ssant variations.

11 posted on 07/16/2002 12:28:22 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibKill
Well, if memory serves me, the Roe vs. Wade decison spoke of a 'prenumba' (shadow, in plain English) of privacy under the fourth amendment.

Personally, I think that any "prenumbra of privacy" is trumped by a law addressing the issue that the Roe V. Wade court dodged - when life begins. The court took the easy way out and used the "privacy" argument. If a law defines life at conception, then Roe V. Wade is null and void, IMO.

Again, I still think we need a Constitutional amendment, but I think any reasonable person realizes the writers of the constitution never intended on abortion being a legal activity because it was understood that was murder.

12 posted on 07/16/2002 12:34:20 PM PDT by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
Save the babies BUMP!

Thanks, David.

13 posted on 07/16/2002 12:35:01 PM PDT by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
A law aimed at taking away the Court's rationale isn't the same thing as taking away its ruling in the case, of course, so I think you're generally right. It might give the Court the reason to revisit Roe v. Wade.

This law couldn't overturn it, although it's likely to be even more controversial.

A reversal of Roe v. Wade would return the regulation and permissibility of abortions to each individual state. This Act would arguably grant some rights to the embryo immediately upon conception, thus making it a federal issue and taking it away from the states again.

Interesting stuff.

14 posted on 07/16/2002 12:35:53 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I'm with you all the way. A 'Right to Life' amendment would put an end to all this murderous cr@p.
15 posted on 07/16/2002 12:40:46 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Scholastic; kristinn
Ping!
17 posted on 07/16/2002 12:41:46 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
realizes the writers of the constitution never intended on abortion being a legal activity because it was understood that was murder.

You are onto something here. If life can't be said to exist here or there, why would something need to be done to stop it? They can say first trimester and all that, but if it isn't human life, how would a human baby naturally be the result. The continuous chain of events is already begun.

18 posted on 07/16/2002 12:44:16 PM PDT by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
BTTT
19 posted on 07/16/2002 12:45:25 PM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
You are onto something good. Life is Life and deserves RESPECT, and protection.
20 posted on 07/16/2002 12:46:15 PM PDT by LibKill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-124 next 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson