Posted on 04/18/2007 7:14:49 AM PDT by Spiff
Edited on 04/18/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on a controversial abortion procedure Wednesday, handing abortion opponents the long-awaited victory they expected from a more conservative bench.
The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law in 2003 does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Libs.. need to take a step back. Look at the innocent lives we lost this week at Virginia Tech. They need to see we have to let go of the anger and turmoil and rejoice that these UNBORN have a fighting chance at LIFE.
You are either with us or against us. The bible says the seperation will be great and transparent in the end. We are seeing the seperation daily between good and bad. I would hate to be on the wrong side of this when it comes to JUDGEMENT DAY.
The Fourteenth Amendment, properly understood, prohibits States from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; and denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, your question might be turned around: Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to unleash anarchy and death upon whole class of persons by denying them the equal protection of the laws?
Cordially,
You know...I am happy about this decision...and I would have loved to join the thread...to celebrate with freepers.
BUT, that snarky comment ABOVE the article about Rudy...
ruins the whole thread.!!
NO THANK YOU!
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
How long are you people going to keep spitting out that lie? You’ve already convinced the shallow end of the gene pool. You’re not winning any more converts. Time to find a new conservative-bashing lie.
Thank God!!
When is it necessary and proper to crush the skull of a baby? Justice Ginsberg is a loon.
YES!!! A baby old enough to qualify for a partial birth abortion is old enough to qualify for the NICU. You don’t have to kill them if the pregnancy really, honestly needs to end.
What the demmies seem to not understand is that the last election’s results were NOT because people were voting FOR them—people were voting AGAINST the do-nothing Republicans!
Hopefully, conservatives have learned from their mistakes (and boy, was it a whopper!!!), and Fred et al will win in a landslide in 2008! :-)
I meant *butcher them* not just kill them.
Good news, yes. Still idiotic jurisprudence. More poison fruits of Roe v. Wade.
AMEN
This decision specifically bans a procedure and does not set any time limits.
Even if all you say is true, it sets a vital precedent that states can ban specific procedures and not violate Roe.
I have hoped ever since seeing Kennedy's outrage in Stenberg back in 2000 that he would never trust the left again on this issue. His decision today comes as no real surprise to me. I am just hoping that there is "more where that came from" for lack of a better phrase.
We must constantly pray for Kennedy and for at least one more liberal retirement. The lives of millions are at stake.
The good news here is that we now have some abortion jurisprudence that is undercutting Roe and Planned Parenthood.
BTW, affirming the federal government's power to regulate abortion per se thereby affirms a central tenet of Roe v Wade. Without that power, Roe v Wade is effectively moot.
We might continue the fight against the al-Qaedacrats and their rabid hate of America and babies. We must win 2008 or all efforts will be reversed.
I would agree with your reasoning, and the language in the PBA of 2003 cites to it as a life issue. But, how do you explain Thomas’ writing which shows that a Commerce Clause issue may have been raised, but was not at issue before the Court in this specific matter?
I would feel much better if the Court ruled as it did on your view.
Yes. This doesn’t weaken Roe, but it does give the possibility of a limit on Roe.
Roe says, on its face, abortion at will during the first trimester.
Today’s decision eliminates a procedure for later-term abortions, but doesn’t prevent the cutting up of the fetus in utero. That’s the next place to fight. Given that babies can live outside the womb at 22 weeks and earlier now, having medically at-risk women carry the baby until that point and then trying to save the baby becomes a real medical strategy. There remains the issue of babies who are discovered, after 12 weeks, to be horribly deformed, but that’s an argument that the other side can make, so that they’re arguing for eugenics.
Limit abortion to the first trimester, and you have limited it to post-pregnancy birth control. That’s still 90% of the problem.
The way to go after that isn’t Roe, it’s to keep pushing out dramatic ultrasound photos, emphasize the age at which babies feel pain, and push towards the idea that a developing baby, at least after the point of pain, is a PERSON. If more and more people start to believe that, it will be more and more possible, over time, to get a court to SAY that, and that would strike a mortal blow to Roe.
But there is more. It really won’t do to outlaw abortion without having a fully articulate and articulable plan for dealing with about 1 million more poor welfare babies every year. The usual conservative handwave about private sector and religious charity will not cut it, because it is unrealistic and will not work. If we really outlaw abortion, we are going to have to prepare the groundwork for an expansion of the Social State to embrace at least 1 million new poor kids on relief every year, year after year, 18 million ADDITIONAL minor welfare recipients. That’s the reality of a no-abortion regime, the “Latin American” reality. Abortion is illegal in Latin America, and one of the reasons there is such a burgeoning perpetual poverty problem is precisely that: babies who would be aborted by the underclass in America are born in Latin America, and every human being has the same physical needs for food, shelter, clothing, etc.
Pro-lifers have to get their minds around the fact that if we really abolish abortion, we are going to have to increase the social welfare state quite dramatically. We cannot force people to have babies who are then plunged into poverty. The electorate will NEVER accept that, and we should not propose it. It is irresponsible and unChristian to boot. Fact is, we have to have a fully articulated economic and social welfare plan for dealing with about 20 million additional minors on welfare every year once 2 decades or so after abortion has been repealed. It’s a demographic reality that half of the two million abortions every year are to the welfare poor. End abortion, the welfare poor will have those 1 million babies every year, and the numbers will rapidly accumulate.
Abolishing abortion means higher taxes and, unless we REALLY fix the education system to specifically lift up the underclass, more crime. It most certainly does. It also means a LOT more handicapped and congenitally ill children are born who are currently aborted, and THAT means higher Medicaid costs across the board. It most certainly does.
Doing God’s will and saving babies and caring for the poor, the weak, the sick and the orphan comes at a steep price. Let’s not kid ourselves. Abortion is a cheap way to keep social welfare and medical costs way down, not to mention crime, which is also supressed by eliminating so many of the unborn underclass. We are not credible if we don’t face the full reality, and accept the higher social welfare burdens that our beliefs require. If we will not do that, because we want to have our pro-life and our low-taxes, small social welfare state cake and eat it too, we’re not credible. The country won’t go that way. Pro-life means saving babies. It ALSO means feeding, clothing, housing and educating millions more poor babies, year after year, and providing government medical insurance for the congenitally ill whose parents cannot afford to pay for medical care. We shepherd them to birth by outlawing abortion, we have taken on the responsibility of shepherding them all the way to adulthood in all of those cases where the poor underclass woman has aborted precisely because she DOESN’T have the means or the will to raise a child. That child will become OUR collective social responsibility. There will be 1 million additional ones every year, about 20 million in 20 years. And that will go on forever. We have to plan for that, and platitudes won’t do.
There, fixed it.
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.