Posted on 01/16/2005 1:54:25 PM PST by cpforlife.org
A person is Pro-Life only to the degree to which they are willing to actually “do something about it”. I’ve been Pro-Life my entire life but until 7 or so years ago I did not do a thing about it. I still am not doing everything possible that I can do, but I am trying and getting better with time.
President Bush, whom I spent much time, effort, and resources for on both his bids for the White House is Pro-Life with such exceptions and compromises as to make the claim an insult to the 6 million babies that have been dismembered since he took office. Yes I believe President Bush is personally against abortion, but the actions he has taken thus far have saved very few, if any lives.
The president can, under his Constitutional authority refuse to enforce an unconstitutional opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts. [1] “Pro-Life” Bush on any given day over the last 4 years could have broken the tyrannical holocaust of the Roe v Wade OPINION, which would then let the States' decide, as was the situation prior to Roe. 30 states have laws on the books banning or restricting abortion, and President Bush could have signed a piece of paper allowing those laws to be enforced. Since his party is in control of both houses of Congress there is virtually no chance that he would have been impeached let alone removed for such a brave and just act as this. If Bush were a true committed Pro-Lifer he would have used this authority, which has been used at least 3 times in history on FAR LESS SERIOUS MATTERS AS 4,000 murders a day every day for 32 years.
Bush signed The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2004. I’m sure he knew that other than the tremendous educational and public awareness impact (which is very good) the law was meaningless because all the serial killer abortionist had to do to stay “within the law” was give a lethal injection to the child prior to partial delivery and sucking his brains out.
President Bush has also had the opportunity for no less than two years to champion legislation that would have ended the holocaust precipitated by Roe [2]. His silence on this life saving legislation is at the same deafening level as everyone else, as only 2 or 3 Congressmen joined to co sponsor the different legislation, so I’m not singling Dubya out.
The only way the holocaust will end is with real and courageous leadership from Capitol Hill and the White House, from Pro-Lifers who are willing to do real battle for the babies, and for the Constitution.
President Bush is a hero on the war on terror, and I believe still can be a FAR GREATER hero, if he would do all that he can do to stop the murderous terror of American waiting to be born.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]Executive dissent with unconstitutional majority opinion
The President takes an oath of office Article 6, Clause 3 "to support this Constitution" and not the penumbras emanating from deviant dicta and unconstitutional opinion. The President can present his case of dissent to the public in a public address, executive orders, through members of his cabinet and through members of his party. He can act on his opinion, by not enforcing Roe v Wade and progeny against the States. States could legislate as they did prior to the 1973 unconstitutional opinion.
The following quote from Andrew Jackson is a concise statement of Constitutional principal that has been ignored, or forgotten for many decades. The prevailing myth seems to be that the Constitution is what the federal judiciary says it is, regardless of the extent of deviation from text or intent, and that all others who are bound by an oath of Office in Article 6, Clause 3 are forbidden to act on their understanding of the text they are sworn to uphold.
Article 6, Clause 3 contains no Oath or Affirmation to support any federal judicial opinion. The plain text of the Constitution reveals separation of powers, checks & balances and coordinate functioning of three branches that are not coequal in power. Power of impeachment, funding, regulation of lower federal court jurisdiction and the U.S. Supreme appelate jurisdiction resides in Congress. The President has the power of enforcement and isn't Constitutionally, legally, or ethically required to blindly enforce blatantly unconstitutional opinions. The Supreme Court has only the power of opinion, which has become far more biased in its increasing disregard of plain text than the mainstream media has been in its disregard of plain fact.
The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
[2] We the People Act (HR 3893)- Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Pro-Life and Pro-Family groups and individuals must learn about this incredible piece of life saving legislation and call write fax e-mail their Representatives to demand that they co-sponsor and champion this legislation.
THHHWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTT!!
Sorry, had to blow the bovine excrement warning whistle on you there. See posts 118 and 180.
One only had to read the title to know this was a pile of bovine effluents. If someone posted a thread titled "Ted Kennedy is a neo-con" would you have to read their lengthy post to know they were off-base?
Bovine Effluents! See posts 118 and 180.
It depends how you define "pro-choice." Like so many other issues, the details are crucial.
Pro-aborts will tell you that polls show most Americans are pro-abort. But it turns out that what the polls show is that very few Americans would ban abortion completely, and that somewhere over 80% would accept at least some of the reasonable restrictions the pro-abort lobby fights so hard against: Parental notification, waiting periods, fetal development info, etc. An easy majority (in the 65% area IIRC) would accept a ban except for rape and incest.
Expect those numbers to get bigger as time goes on...ultrasound makes pro-lifers.
Trust me, cpforlife has been on my pro-life ping list for quite some time and he's the real deal, he's not posting this to get blog traffic.
That doesn't mean he isn't acting loopy, it just means he's acting loopy for real.
Pro-lifers are far from hypocrites
If you’ve paid any attention to the abortion debate, you’ve heard some variant of an already old chestnut: “Anti-choicers want all these babies born, but they don’t want to adopt them, help the mothers, do social work or pay higher taxes. They’re part of the problem.” That accusation may come from rhetorical expedience or simple ignorance, but those who make it have never met Sherrie Bicksler.
Bicksler is the director of the Freeport Pregnancy Center, in Freeport, Illinois, and caring for disadvantaged mothers and children is her full-time job. The Center’s staff (mostly volunteers) provides assistance, prayer and listening ears to hundreds of clients each year. They have personal contact with between 175 and 200 clients per month, including 35-40 new clients. They offer free and confidential pregnancy tests and can refer a client to other agencies for any need, from education to domestic violence counseling.
The aim is to show God’s love, to be, as Bicksler says, “Jesus with skin on” in the client’s hour of crisis. Donations are accepted “as from God,” she observes, “and He always makes sure it goes to someone who needs it." For example, five times in the last four years she’s seen Center supporters completely equip and furnish the apartments of formerly homeless clients with donated items. She credits the success to the Center’s dedicated prayer team.
Yet this special place isn’t unique. The Center is a member of CareNet, an organization of over 700 pregnancy centers across the United States and Canada. Each is a place where a woman backed into a corner can find kindness and real solutions. It’s not unique in our area, where a Yahoo search on “abortion alternatives” brings up 16 results within 50 miles. Strangely, a search on “Planned Parenthood soup kitchens” returned no results.
Pregnancy centers aren’t the only area pro-lifers impact. I look around my church, and I see mentors, volunteers for NHS and the school district, people who preach in nursing homes and jails. If all the pro-lifers in town gave up on helping “the least of these,” how would it all get done? Pro-lifers also put their parenting where their mouth is and adopt. A member of our county Right to Life Committee wrote, “We are not, by any means, wealthy financially; but the love and joy our adopted child has brought into our life makes us rich indeed. We asked for a special needs child; we found the only special need the child had was the need for a loving family.”
Even if pro-lifers weren’t devoting themselves to making lives better, would they be such hypocrites? If you don’t have to be a civil rights activist to be outraged about a lynching, why would you have to adopt a handicapped child before you could legitimately object to children’s lives being snuffed out? It’s thick irony that the vast majority of pro-choicers are political liberals. For decades, they’ve told us that we need ever more bloated government programs to take care of every need of the downtrodden. Yet when some of us want to put a stop to the killing of small children, they demand to know why we haven’t handled all the problems they said the state would cure.
So why does the myth of the uninvolved pro-lifer exist? Sadly, such wordplay is all that is left for the advocates of abortion. In the age of ultrasound, one can’t really argue that a fetus isn’t a baby. It’s easier to say that your opponents are hypocrites who should shut up, but like so many other pro-abortion arguments, it collapses immediately upon contact with facts.
I won’t pretend supporters of abortion never do anything to help the community. Still, it strikes me that community service is often prescribed as punishment for non-violent criminals. Since abortion is violent, but not technically criminal, perhaps area pro-aborts could throw in a few extra hours each week to atone for the blood this vaunted “right” has cost us. Roll up your sleeves, folks: there are about 4,000 abortions per day, and you’re already 40,000,000 kids behind.
Who put the burr under your saddle? What cpforlife posted is every bit as loopy as a thread detailing why Ted Kennedy is a neo-con, so "yawn" is a pretty measured response.
Ah rommy, if pnly you hadn't been zotted, you could have come back to tell us all why killing a small child is a sacred Constitutional right.
As I noted in post 180 (I'll save you reading it, it's quite long) the proposed 1 man overturn of Roe vs. Wade would lead to impeachment and to some extent, anarchy, since so many Americans would believe the order to be unconstitutional and ignore it. Also, the We The People Act cp is supporting would be blatantly unconstitional, gutting the federal courts to the point that they would have no power to check and balance the other branches or prevent abuses by state and local officials.
See post 118...and then tell me why exactly a lack of pro-life action is going to kill the GOP.
Heh-heh. Never thought I'd see cp and Moby having anything in common.
Bears repeating. Also, a thought occurs: Did Oscar Schindler do as much to end the Holocaust as he could have? After all, to paraphrase cpforlife, "A person is anti-Holocaust only to the degree to which they are willing to actually 'do something about it.'" Maybe Schindler could have done more. Maybe the couple who sheltered Anne Frank's family could have, too.
Oh, we don't think that Bush is a pro-abort, so we're equivalent to crack addicts and dogs? Seems to me that you're the one with the lack of moral sense.
There are about 4,000 abortions per day in America. Do you really believe there were 4,000 illegal abortions a day in 1972, the year before it was decriminalized?
ROTFLMBO!! You have got to be hosing me!
Ban all religious head garb.
Are you serious? And if so, have you read something called The Fuirst Amendment?
See 167, especially the last two paragraphs.
Every single baby that is killed is one too many. But the question is, will a particular course of action help or hurt the effort to reduce the number of abortions in real life, as opposed to theory?
President Bush has taken several active steps to reduce abortion. Furthermore he has resisted the course of action that even Ronald Reagan finally resorted to: giving in and appointing bad or questionable judges because the Democrats obstructed all the best candidates.
It remains to be seen whether Bush will follow through on his obligation to appoint solid pro-life judges. I hope and think that he will, because he has good political as well as moral reasons to do so. Never put absolute trust in politicians, or in men for that matter, because sooner or later you will be disappointed. But on balance I think Bush deserves our support now, unless and until he proves otherwise. The judicial appointment process will be very closely watched. In particular, Arlen Specter's conduct will be very closely watched, because Bush took the responsibility for his being there.
Please do consider carefully what I said about section three of the We The People Act.
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.