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 ...
Amen. This is the greatest news for pro-lifers since the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down. Thank God for this courageous president.
Only because Bush was such a wimp. Reagan and Bush 41 got nominees through the Senate.
Not saying that I agree with Roe, but the 9th amendment makes it clear that the rights explicitly listed in the constitution are not an exhaustive list.
It is scary that politically active people in this country believe that rights must be explicitly listed to be right retained by the People. Remember, the constitution is a document that puts limits on government power.
No, the new line is that this decision just gave Hillary the election since “most people want abortion”.
It would be far better to bypass SCOTUS and return abortion to the “states and the people” where it belongs. Roe vs. Wade was a grievous error and only a Constitutional Amendment will remove it from SCOTUS actions.
Apparently, the court determined that this was not covered by the “emanating penumbra” clause of the U.S. Constitution.
I'm assuming that by "higher social welfare burdens" that you mean government and higher taxes. But what makes you think that it is within the purview of government in the first place, or that the government has any competence whatever to do any of these things? Even if you are correct that we have to have a "fully articulated economic and social welfare plan for dealing with about 20 million additional minors, it is a non-sequiter to simply assume that it is the job of government to "solve" these problems. The responsibilty and competency lies elsewhere. If your predictions are right, God help us if we rely on the government to do those things that were never intended by God for it to do. The end result will be even more of the problem that the government was supposed to "fix". If the present manifestations of the abject failures of the Welfare State, indeed, its exacerbation of such problems don't convince you of that proposition I don't know what else possibly could.
Cordially,
“Only because Bush was such a wimp. Reagan and Bush 41 got nominees through the Senate.”
Like Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter?
Quit bashing the President and give him the credit he deserves.
A good step forward. Abortion is still legal.
Democrats are baby-killers.
GW is anything but a wimp and posters like yourself are pathetic with your bashing in the face of a victory.
This is not a confederacy.
We have a federal union of states that are united on the principles outlined in the Preamble. In order to form a more perfect union than was possible under a confederate system, all states agreed to a federal Constitution whose purpose is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
For a state to claim the right to kill the innocent, it would have to secede from the union.
And they say he's no different then a Democrat
Praise the Lord!
YES!!
A strong epidemic of boogie fever is breaking out in the Silverback house!
The fact there is still a legal procedure where a "doctor" can reach in and dismember a living baby is both sad and insane. I had never heard of it until the press - in it's apparent disappointment at the ruling - threw that in our face lest we get too cheerful. They've done an exemplary job of hiding that from the public until now.
Lefty’s are in a panic.
THANK GOD! And may He bless our faithful president and the judges he righteously appointed.
True, but not strongly enough to make them switch parties. While the number of voters who are against abortion may be about half of the county, only a subset of those voters care enough to make it an important issue to them.
On the other hand, the voters (especially women) who are pro-choice take Roe very seriously and would easily defect to vote for a democrat that they have nothing in else in common with, if the Dem would vow to protect Roe v Wade.
If the Republicans embrace this decision and campaign on trying to overturn Roe v Wade then the Dems will put on beating on them in 2008.
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.