Posted on 10/21/2005 6:49:57 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
English common law was not the only reason given in Roe v. Wade. They used amphibian embryology, Thomas Aquinas, and ancient Greek ideas, too. Oh, and there were no laws (for or against) in early America - you remember, that nation that had legalized slavery and no female sufferage.
None of which have anything to do with what we know about human embryology.
It is appropriate, don't you think, that increased evidence should affect legislation?
What a wonderful thing! I pray this bill is passed.
Please see:
A BRIEF SURVEY OF US ABORTION LAW BEFORE THE 1973 DECISION
http://cpforlife.org/id139.htm
Abortion Statutes of the 19th & 20th Centuries
http://www.missourilife.org/law/preroe.htm
During the first decades of the 1800's, scientists began to understand the cellular basis of life and for the first time were able to observe the process of fertilization in mammals. As the stages of development became clear, it also became clear that abortion kills a living human being, no matter what the stage of the child's development. The resulting scientific knowledge about the process of conception and development led to efforts to enact stronger bans on abortion. In addition, scientific progress allowed for surgical means of performing abortion, and abortion was perceived to be on the increase. Beginning in 1859, the American Medical Association called for strong anti-abortion laws and vigorous enforcement of them. In view of the claim by twentieth century abortionists that physicians did this only to protect their own profession or solely to protect women's health, it is useful to quote the doctors themselves on why they wanted action by the states:
The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime--a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of fetal life; . . .
The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being.
* * * *
In accordance, therefore, with the facts in the case, the Committee would advise that this body, representing, as it does, the physicians of the land, publicly express its abhorrence of the unnatural and now rapidly increasing crime of abortion; that it avow its true nature, as no simple offence against public morality and decency, no mere misdemeanor, no attempt upon the life of the mother, but the wanton and murderous destruction of her child; . . .13
The AMA adopted the recommendation described above and sponsored initiatives in all states, spurring most legislatures to enact strong prohibitions upon abortion that swept away the "quickening" distinction.14 In the remaining states, abortion remained prohibited by common law. In no state was abortion legal in the nineteenth century or for most of the twentieth century, except to save the life of the mother.15
In the 1960's, calls for loosening abortion restrictions began. In the five years from 1967 through 1972, thirteen states adopted a model statute proposed by the American Law Institute which allowed abortions for certain limited periods upon the certification of doctors that abortion was medically necessary.16 In four states, statutes were enacted which allowed abortion for any reason but only until a certain point in the pregnancy.17 New York's 1970 law was considered the most radical of these because it allowed abortion for almost any reason through the 24th week of the child's development. In 1972, the New York Legislature tried to repeal the law, but the repeal was vetoed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller.18 After New York enacted its law, the drive for loose abortion laws sputtered. Such laws were rejected by over 30 state legislatures and approved in only one more, Florida. In the fall of 1972, just less than three months before the Roe v. Wade decision, the people of two states, North Dakota and Michigan, rejected ballot measures for looser abortion laws by majorities of 77% and 61% respectively.19 Efforts to loosen abortion laws may have continued had the U. S. Supreme Court not interfered with the democratic process in 1973, but the momentum had passed to the pro-life opponents of such laws.
In accord with the spirit of the 1960's, pro-abortionists sought to have the courts change social policy when legislatures would not change it fast enough to suit them. Lawsuits were filed to declare existing abortion laws unconstitutional.20 Two of these lawsuits culminated in the 1973 U. S. Supreme Court decisions, Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. Together, those two decisions decreed the abortion laws of all 50 states unconstitutional, including the new laws described above, because they did not allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy if a physician was willing to do the procedure.
What this means is that before Roe v. Wade in 1973, the legality of abortion in the U. S. essentially rested with the legislatures of the several states. However, in 1973, the United States Supreme Court held that abortion was a constitutional right. This ruling turned abortion into an issue of federal constitutional law, the contours of which could only be determined by lawsuit after lawsuit. From then on, the law of abortion depended on the decisions of federal courts in lawsuits brought by abortionists and their defenders.
The abortions decisions of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts are summarized in the article, "Current Law of Abortion." In order to understand the cases, readers who are not lawyers may want to review the process of constitutional adjudication on the page, "General Background of Abortion Lawsuits."
+
Hold it, hold it! Are they saying that we were fighting tooth and nail for 30+ years to restructure the Supreme Court, partially so it would overturn Roe v Wade, when all we had to do to change it was railroad a piece of legislation through Congress???? I don't believe that; something is missing here. If it had been this simple someone would have come up with the idea decades ago. It might be a nice symbolic gesture, but I can't imagine that, legally, it would actually change anything.
Thank you for that wonderful news.
Now it's time for us to get busy and contact our U.S. senators and reps, and write letters to editors to ask others to do the same.
Catholicpress.org is a good place for Catholics to go to find e-mails for all Catholic diocesan newspapers, and some nondiocesan newspapers, in the country, and write those letters to editors.
Thank you for your post... I was about to fish up that information, but you did it for me.
I find this portion of the legislation particularly important:
"One of the most common reasons why preborns never get the chance to live a natural life is that they are aborted by contraceptives that are designed to cause early abortions. These contraceptives are better defined as abortifacients, since far from preventing conception, they allow the creation of a unique human person and then destroy them by preventing them from following their natural course of development. The Right to Life Act recognizes that a person exists from the moment of conception and therefore any willful ending of that life should be treated like any other instance where one person takes another's life."
~ People on another thread seemed to think I was delusional for maintaining that certain methods of birth control act as abortifacients, and that my "wild ideas" were shared by no one. This act proves otherwise. Babies are precious no matter how young and tiny they are!
The problem is that they've never been told how some contraception works so they assume it all prevents conception.
I once explained to someone exactly what a partial birth abortion was. She called me a liar. Then she did some research.
I'm surprised Ron Paul's name isn't there. I thought he was pro-life.
Blessing and benediction on Rep. Duncan Hunter for his compassion for the weak and voiceless. May this effort find a foothold in hearts not yet too stony to care anymore.
I can't understand how after President Bush signed into law a ban on partial birth abortion, not even one baby has been saved from partial birth infanticide.
Every judge in the country can't be an activist judge.
Can someone explain this to me?
I must make an admission.
My girlfriend of three months got pregnant...wait I got her pregnant.
Anyways, after knowing her for only three months and I and her were very young, I thought it best she have an abortion.
Thank the good Lord above she had more sense than I did.
My son is one of the two most beautiful things in my life and in this world in my opinion. We had a little girls two years later. We are not together anymore and I don't get to live with my children full time, but since I have had children I am totally against abortion and killing fertilized embryos for research.
Granted we didn't have brains to be having unprotected sex but that's no reason to kill my son and daughter.
There names are Zaine and Kendra. 4 yr. and 6 yr. old
They are not little masses of tissue not yet formed into a human. They are, and will always, be my children and my favorite gift from God.
"....A bill such as this might make someone consider adoption or contraceptive...."
There are so many couples who want to adopt, and a baby would bring so much joy in their lives, and more importantly the babies would live.
As for contraception, a birth control pill could cause an abortion, if conception takes place.
Many religious and secular people use Natural Family Planning, and it is just as effective as the birth control pill.
God bless you.
With all due respect (and I mean that) we must educate people that adoption is truly the loving option. A woman can give up nine months of her life to GIVE that life to someone who is deeply desiring and praying daily for a child, and yet, cannot bear a child. Abortion is taking a life; adoption is giving a life.
In 1988 I gave my Down Syndrome baby, Rachel, to a wonderful adoptive mother who had a Masters in Special Ed and before she met me and Rachel, was praying that God would give her a baby girl with Down Syndrome -- and she wanted to name her Rachel.
That's beautiful. Thank you for sharing it.
Thank You. It is absolutely my pleasure. I only wish I could share with kids like I was.
If this law passes I believe many kids would be a lot more careful instead of thinking there's a quick fix "just in case".
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.