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


1 posted on 07/21/2005 8:41:55 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: CHARLITE
RvW was bad in that it used the privacy practices of Mayo Clinic and turned it into a constitutionally guaranteed "right" - made out of whole clothe. Bad decisions can be overturned and have been over the course of history. What is scarier still, if we let stand a fictitious privacy right that came from a hospital's policy, when will a principle found in Shari'a law be used and upheld in a US court?
2 posted on 07/21/2005 8:47:05 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE
Interesting indeed. As a political argument seems right on the money however I believe it will get little support from Pro lifers. I still say do it as the left did, small steps towards liberty. Chip away, first, define PBA as the ugly crime it is except in circumstances to save the mothers life and go from there....IMO
3 posted on 07/21/2005 8:49:07 PM PDT by Archon of the East ("universal executive power of the law of nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

Why do we even discuss abortion in the context of the Supreme Court????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? It is not something that I or anybody I know is concerned about, we could care less if it is legal or not. Other than the news, I don't think I have heard anybody even say the word in about 20 years. Guess, what, dems, nobody cares about your chief issue. Get over it!


4 posted on 07/21/2005 8:51:57 PM PDT by Ethyl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

Even if Roe is overturned (unlikely) - it will be tossed back to the states level. And any state overturning it will speedily drown in increased welfare payments and go bankrupt.


5 posted on 07/21/2005 8:52:13 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

I sincerely doubt there's any such plan.


7 posted on 07/21/2005 8:58:31 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Sandy; jwalsh07

More rationalizing over here.


9 posted on 07/21/2005 9:02:28 PM PDT by Huck (Whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

This author is obviously just another abortion apologist and she doesn't even make a lot of sense. When she says "[The republicans] should recall their clever move last year to put a gay-marriage ban on the Ohio ballot. It was meaningless but did draw more conservatives to the polls, who also voted for Bush. The trick works for Democrats, too." she is somehow asuming that an anti-abortion referendum would draw sufficient pro-aborts to outnumber pro-lifers. She is concluding that anti-gay marriage is more popular than anti-abortion which MAY be true, but not necessarily.

If Roe were overturned, we would certainly end up, at the very least, with far more restrictive laws than we have now. There would be very few, if any, states were partial birth abortion would be available, and I'd guess there'd be NONE without parental consent/notification laws.

And as for the plight of the pregnant service women, sorry, I'm not swayed by that at all. That's another arguement for "SAFE" abortions, but these folks don't even care to count how many women are maimed and killed right here, stateside, in our fine, high class, murder mills.

And as for the plight of the "soccer moms" who just need to be assured that their 16 years olds can get an abortion, well, that is just sick.

Hopefully, if Roe remains legal, in another generation and a half it will be a moot law as the liberals will have contracepted/aborted themselves out of existance. Hey, I can dream can't I?


10 posted on 07/21/2005 9:02:51 PM PDT by jocon307 (Can we close the border NOW?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE
The other problem in overturning Roe is that it would send the abortion issue down to the state level.

There's that darn Constitution getting in the way. Oh well! Just ignore it! Genius! Blather! Pass the booze!

11 posted on 07/21/2005 9:03:23 PM PDT by Huck (Whatever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

I think this article is BS.


15 posted on 07/21/2005 9:20:17 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE
I wouldn't want to be a Republican politician the day that suburban mothers learn there's no legal way to end their 16-year-old daughter's unwanted pregnancy.

Maybe those suburban mothers should teach their daughters to keep their legs closed....

16 posted on 07/21/2005 9:22:00 PM PDT by Echo Talon (http://echotalon.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

The author's arguments are based on the incorrect notion that there is a "pro-choice majority". That was true twenty years ago, but not today. Polls show Americans are evenly split. In blue states there are pro-choice majorities, and red states they are pro-life. So putting the issue on state ballots wouldn't change the overall political picture. It would mean abortion would be illegal in many states, severly restricted in others, and unrestiction in the rest. The law would conform to what the people and their legislators decide. Works for me.


17 posted on 07/21/2005 9:25:45 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE
Social conservatives will think they won. And when a court ruling later proves they haven't, Republican leaders can comfort them.
Social conservatives will then feel used, drop out of the political process and let Democrats run the country. Good plan!
22 posted on 07/21/2005 10:51:14 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt (http://adamsweb.us/blog Conservative Truth for Idaho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

INteresting indeed, but an unfortunate truth.

While it would be terrible to lose elections, Roe V. Wade should be overturned not for political benefit but because MURDERING BABIES SHOULD BE ILLEGAL! I don't want one more baby to die at the hands of abortionists!


23 posted on 07/21/2005 10:54:45 PM PDT by pcottraux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

It is probably true the legal reasoning on Roe vs Wade was erroneous (privacy rights). However, I do not believe it is good public policy to make abortion unlawful.

Why?

If abortion is made unlawful, we will go back to the days of 'back alley abortionists'. This means many women will be injured and die from bungled procedures. Thus, we must make our decisions based on the total implications of the issue, instead of dogma.


25 posted on 07/22/2005 12:03:38 AM PDT by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: CHARLITE

I agree that there would be a huge backlash. I wish the abortion issue would be voted on, instead of by judical activism on either side. Then get it out of politics. Many moderates (myself included) are sick to death of hearing about it.


26 posted on 07/22/2005 3:27:45 AM PDT by tkathy (Tyranny breeds terrorism. Freedom breeds peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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