- llegal (30, Red);
- Legal in case of rape (1, Purple);
- Legal in case of danger to woman's health (2, Blue);
- Legal in case of danger to woman's health, rape or incest, or likely damaged fetus (13, Green);
- Legal on request (4, Yellow)
Posted on 07/28/2011 6:03:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A smart middle-ground play for independents, but I thought he was supposed to be the great evangelical hope. Last week he said he was “fine” with New York legalizing gay marriage before clarifying today that he’s not fine with gay marriage itself. (In fact, he supports a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now this. Why would a social-conservative voter looking for a champion who has traction in the polls prefer him to, say, Bachmann?
Maybe Perry’s willing to shed some votes in Iowa in exchange for picking some up in New Hampshire.
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 National Right to Life Committee responded to Perry’s categorization of abortion as a states’ rights issue in a statement, saying, “Our society has an obligation to enact laws that recognize and protect the smallest members of our human family. Prior to Roe, states had the ability to enact laws that extended full legal protection to unborn children. We look forward to the day when Roe v. Wade is changed, and the states will once again have the ability to pass legislation that fully protects mothers and their unborn children.”
I’m surprised the NRLC gave him cover on that. Granted, the immediate first step after Roe is overturned would be state laws restricting abortion, but I’ve never understood that to be the end point for pro-lifers, as Perry seems to suggest by invoking the Tenth Amendment. The goal is a Human Life Amendment or, at a minimum, a federal statute banning abortion coast-to-coast. If you believe abortion is murder, why on earth would you want to let any state choose to legalize it? Huckabee made that point succinctly during the 2008 campaign; watch the end of the clip below.
Maybe Perry’s position on this mirrors his position on gay marriage. His argument for the Federal Marriage Amendment is that it would require ratification by three-fourths of the states, so the process honors the federalist principle of the Tenth Amendment even though the FMA would trump it. He could make the same argument for the HLA, although (a) a hardcore believer in the Tenth Amendment presumably wouldn’t want to see the sovereignty of any state trumped, even if three-quarters of the other states agree, and (b) if he didn’t make the same argument for the HLA, he’d have to explain why he thinks gay marriage requires a national solution but abortion doesn’t.
But maybe none of this matters. Neither the HLA nor the FMA will ever pass, so all we’re doing is polishing credentials here — and his already have plenty of polish. The latest whispers from his advisors, incidentally, claim that he’ll be in by late August. In fact, he’s already nudging Fox about a spot in the August 11 debate.
Human sacrifice is such an egregious horror NO ONE should accept it.
“You either believe in the 5th Amendment or not” - me
It is refreshing to find a politician anywhere who even knows there is a 10th amendment
It is..
I'm not. I've worked with NRLC on a number of projects and their primary position is (a) Roe v Wade is bad law. That (b) overturning Roe v. Wade is the first necessary step and that (c) NRLC and pro-life groups need to work *within the system* to enact pro-life laws on the state level and forbid federal interference with those laws.
It's a very pro-10th position. They believe that once Roe v Wade is overturned that they can appeal to people's consciences and hearts to enact pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn.
MRLC frowns on the Operation Rescue types that try to take the law into their own hands, well-intentioned as they may be, and looks to work through repealing Roe v Wade and enacting state laws as the way to save unborn lives.
I'd say their approach to the subject and Perry's are quite well-meshed.
So we should just accept Free and Slave states again?
I respectfully disagree with slavery and believe the unborn are due the full protections accorded under the 14th amendement.
Yes, the 10th is important, but a child in NY is no less valuable than one in TX.
I agree...and I said so last night at a GOP meeting, as did many others.....
For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it's fundamentally a state issue. If it's ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law?
That was the status quo ante in 1972 and it is correct. Throughout all US History, the States determined when a person was alive or not alive; at the end of life, they still do. If you want no abortion in all fifty States, campaign against it in all fifty States.
If something is occurring in another state, that is considered states right, Perry would not comment, since he is a governor in another state. That might change if he is running for President. He has butted heads with Obama repeatedly regarding states rights in TX. Obama has constantly butted in there especially with the EPA. Grey Eagle
Absolute unmitigated nonsense. The law prior to Roe did not treat the unborn in NY different from the unborn elsewhere.
If the federal government does not have the obligation to protect the innocent throughout america, then there is no point to having a government at all.
As for the ‘incorporation’ argument failing, the unborn were and had been well protected until the passing of Roe, where abortion was recognised as a constitutional right. It’s not the fault of the incorporating law, but rather, a fault of those who wished to see abortion in ascendency.
States do not have the right to declare unpersons. A state cannot class a group of people as not deserving of citizenry or the obligations rleated to the civil protection laws that prevent all of us from committing crimes. Period.
“That was the status quo ante in 1972 and it is correct. Throughout all US History, the States determined when a person was alive or not alive; at the end of life, they still do. If you want no abortion in all fifty States, campaign against it in all fifty States.”
False, the 14th explicitly says to the contrary that they do not have this right, they cannot declare a person to be dead or alive, or declare a person to be not a person.
Prior to Roe, this was the case throughout America which is why Roe was required in order to impose a constitutional right to abortion that may not be abridged by prior amendments.
At present, the first target must be Roe, but when Roe falls, so does abortion in all 50 states.
“For the same reason that you let states write murder laws for themselves, because it’s fundamentally a state issue. If it’s ok for the Federal Govt to dictate abortion law then it can dictate every other form of murder law. Do you want Obama writing your castle doctrine law?”
Nonsense. The Federal government has enumerated rights and powers which is what the 10th covers. The Feds do not have the constitutional authority to intervene in state matters.
The 14th already settled this matter, that this is not in the realm of the State, but the federal government. As it should. The right to life is the most fundamental of all our rights and the federal government has the obligation to protect this right to the fullest extent.
One cannot express any of the other constitutional rights, if one is simple declared to be an unperson. CA and NY may insist on abortion, just as states insisted on slavery. Both were wrong.
Your post is truly the most completely, thoroughly, hilariously false collection of sentences I have ever seen on Free Republic not actually made by a Democrat.
Congratulations! That is quite an accomplishment.
Abortion was legal in New York in 1970 and ten other States before that. It was illegal in Pennsylvania. It had been legal and illegal in various States before a widespread movement to ban abortion in the early 20th century. In all cases where abortion was banned, it was banned entirely on a State-by-State basis. There was NEVER a Federal ban on abortion, because prior to Roe abortion was NOT seen as an area of Federal competence.
As a matter of fact, it still is NOT. Roe actually says that neither the Federal Government nor the States may regulate first trimester abortions AT ALL, because this is a right retained by The People. (Amendment IX.) Roe was not "passed." It is not a law. It is a Supreme Court decision.
The concept of Incorporation at issue here is the question of whether an aspect of the Bill of Rights applies against the States. Contrary to common (completely incorrect) opinion, not all aspects of the Bill of Rights apply outside of Federal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has decided in a period extending back to the early twentieth century exactly what aspects of the Constitution not previously explicitly applied to the States have become incorporated into the 14th Amendment's protections. SCOTUS did not decide that the 2nd Amendment was Incorporated until last year, for example.
Your notion of "incorporating" law is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I haven't the faintest clue what you even think it means. In any case, Incorporation is a Federal criterion for applying case precedent. It is not a "law" any more than Row is.
What is clear is that you have no understanding of either what is in Amendment XIV or the Bill of Rights, nor what rights are retained by the States or the People. Roe v. Wade did not come into existence in a vacuum: it is an expansion of an earlier case law result made in Griswold vs. Connecticut. In Griswold, the Court ruled that States could not regulate contraception because of a right to privacy. The decision is an even bigger mess than Roe. In Griswold the Court declared a "Right to Privacy." Some of the concurring justices made Incorporation arguments, some made arguments based directly on Amendment IX, and one justice invoked the Due Process clause of Amendment XIV directly WITHOUT invoking Incorporation.
And please note, that prior to Griswold, each State had its own laws governing contraception.
As for your entirely silly claims that States have no authority to determine when life begins and ends, please have a look here: Uniform Determination of Death Act. This act is a recommendation from the AMA and other organizations. It has not been adopted in all States, which have all retained -- without any Federal challenge, EVER -- the right to say when life ends.
(Or Google legal determination of death, where you will find several thousand places where you will discover that States do indeed have this authority, and the Federal Government DOES NOT.)
Please educate yourself before you make such an idiotic post ever again. Your statements are an embarrassment to conservatism in general, and Free Republic in particular.
Are you trying to claim that there was no death penalty in 16th Century Spain?
Hernan Cortes held the power of life or death, and actually exercised it in Mexico, over Spaniards and Indians alike.
When Cortes hanged one of his lieutenants, Vilafana, who had the actual ability to put a stop to that execution? Did the Governor of Cuba, hundreds of miles away, who claimed authority over Cortes and considered him a rebel? Did the Spanish Crown thousands of miles away? Did the Church?
No. In the Real World, Cortes in Mexico was a law unto himself and whether Vilafana lived or died depended on that reality and did not depend upon somebody writing that Cortes had neither a legal right or a moral right to hang Vilafana.
Likewise, in the Real World of abortion, actually STOPPING a single abortion does not depend on somebody simply WRITING that it is wrong.
Actually STOPPING a single abortion in a certain place at a certain time requires the legal authority to stop it and the enforcement capability to stop it.
Right now, who has the legal authority and enforcement authority to stop a single abortion in your State?
The Catholic Church?
The Baptist Churches?
Your State?
You?
No. As a result of the perversion of the Tenth Amendment by Roe v. Wade, that legal authority has been usurped by the JUDIACIARY of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Is that what you want?
To have such a decision be under the autocratic control of liberal judges?
Right now, the Federal Judiciary, has usurped the absolute power over life and death, regardless of what the Tenth Amendment says, just like Hernan Cortes in Mexico usurped the absolute power over life and death regardless of what the Governor of Cuba said, regardless of what the Spanish Crown said and regardless of what the Church said in regards to whether Vilafana should live or die.
Right now, even if every single Texan in the State of Texas votes to outlaw abortion in the State of Texas, under the rights reseved to the people of Texas and the State of Texas by the Tenth Amendment, abortion would still be legal because of the Federal judiciary power grab of Roe v. Wade.
Under the Constitution of the United States and specifically, the Tenth Amendment, only each STATE has the right to outlaw abortion.
Not the Catholic Church.
Not the Baptist Churches.
Not the Federal Government.
Only each STATE has the legal right to outlaw abortion.
If you insist on Federalizing the issue of abortion with an "Abortion Amendment", you had better think about that option long and hard because, with the moral degeneration of the majority of the American population, that "Abortion Amendment" will certainly be an amendment establishing abortion as a constitutional right.
You can criticize Perry all you want about saying that abortion, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, is a State's Rights issue and you can get up on your soapbox and say that it is solely a moral issue. In the Real World, however, all the moral protestations of every Church on the planet will not stop a single abortion in Texas. Only the recognition of the State of Texas' right to limit abortion will do such a thing.
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.