Posted on 10/14/2005 10:12:46 PM PDT by SmithL
Well as long as the official (SCOTUS) view of the unborn child is "tissue" then it makes for an inexorable logic that this is a valid health care issue for the mother.
"Thou shalt not kill"
A better translation of the original Hebrew is "You will not murder." The word for "kill" is different. I believe the mistranslation goes back to KJV. The Torah ("Old Testament" to Christians) specifies a number of reasons where killing is allowed, including the death penalty for certain crimes. That said, it in no way endorses abortion or infanticide.
Thomas's resume, when he was elevated to the Court, was not the best. But his writing is TOPS. He is one class act. You get the impression Roberts can handle himself in the league with Scalia and Thomas. I dunno about Bush's latest nominee, to say the least! Well, at least we can say that Roberts and Thomas are the two youngest on the Court. Even if we don't win everything, there are bound to be some great dissents--and dissents often later become the law or public policy...
Eggsacktley ... dehumanize a class of living humans and you can get legal protection to do with them as you please. Twentieth century Germans and Japanese proved that, and now our American liberal democrats have affirmed it 'inexorably', don'tchaknow, murdering annually more than a million dehumanized alive human beings with lieberal court blessing.
Thanks for the ping!
Then you would make a typical judge.
Since when has the Supreme Court ever given a woman a "right to an abortion"? I though Roe v. Wade gave her a "right to privacy" which prevented the state from banning abortion, but how does this force them to facilitate the process?
Give 'm hell, Mr. Justice!
What would "pioneer" Miers do?
I believe that is Justice Thomas had had Florida as part of his assigned states rather then evidently part of the Midwest, Terri Schiavo might still be alive, because the wrong guy had the state and was disinclined to do anything to help.
I did not see the earlier posting but had to click through to check the headline. Can the MSM not even get the simplest basic fact like it was the judge not the prison that was over ruled, really given a stay, in this case?
What are the circumstances of her getting pregnant? Did it happen after her incarceration? Conjugal visit? Who is the father? Boyfriend, guard?
Why does that matter?
She would have to pay for the guards accompanying her and the transportation. It's not as simple as cab fare.
I agree. If this unknown woman can "borrow" enough money from friends to have the abortion then she cannot expect taxpayers to pay her way to get the abortion. I live in Missouri and I don't want my taxes going to help her murder her unborn baby. God bless Clarence Thomas.
Although it doesn't matter, she is 16 - 17 weeks pregnant and she was pregnant before she was jailed.
For a "Young Scholar", you are very bright.
Gotta love this guy - no matter what the voters, who elect representatives, want, no matter what the elected representatives vote on and is signed into law by the elected representative of the entire state want (Governor), he, just a guy in a black robe, knows best.
You make a good point. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how the opinion in the ruling was written. It is entirely possible for a lower court judge to say in so many words that his hands are tied, and invoke a reluctance and cite ambiguities in prior precedents that essentially forces the case to a SCOTUS appeal. It could be that this judge did this, and that we just don't know about it.
The other thing that needs to be remembered about Reagan appointees is that he didn't have much of a pool to choose from (same is true of many of his administration appointments.)
On the other hand, W has a relative wealth of talent to choose from that cut its teeth on the battles of the Reagan years and the conservative revival. Much of the unhappiness with W's choice of Miers (and even some of the uneasiness about Roberts that many have) is built around the fact that it is now or never with regard to taking head-on the fact that Dems always get a liberal justice, whereas the GOP has to fight tooth and nail to get someone who has a 50% chance at best of staying as conservative as they were when they were appointed.
It is inherently wrong, and it should be dealt with clearly, even if it means a fight.
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.