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 ...
That's an understatement.
P.J. You are the man.
If so, then any state should be able to decriminalize owning an African if they feel like it.
Fabulous news!
Truly honest people don't run for state or federal office as Dems anymore.
In Roe, the unborn were not considered "persons" and therefore not protected by the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Well you'd better grab a bucket because we aren't going anywhere. Especially on this issue. Perhaps you nothing or nothing at all liberal RINOs should join the democrat party which stands for nothing other than grabbing and maintaining power at all costs.
That seems to be what you are advocating and it makes you sick to your stomach that people like us are in the party. For your stomach's sake, please change parties. It doesn't make me puke that Rudy pretends to be a Republican. I'm hoping he casts a vote for a real conservative next November. In fact I'm confident that if he votes republican, that he will have the opportunity to vote for a true conservative. But it won't be him. If Rudy wins the nomination, the party is over.
First of all, not everyone who supports abortion is "anti-life," so get rid of that from your lexicon. That is no different than accusing those opposed to abortion as being "anti-privacy."
Secondly, there are a large number (myself included) who believe that the abortion question properly belongs to State regulation.
Thirdly, the right to due process of law is guaranteed only to citizens. The Fourteenth amendment guarantees that only to those born in the United States. At no time in common law were unborn children vested with any rights prior to birth. Now, admittedly, this leaves a huge donut hole where a human being is without protections of law. Now, admittedly, this reasoning is disturbingly like Dred Scott, but unfortunately, it is legally unassailable.
The answer to the breathtaking judicial activism of Roe v. Wade is not to become judicial activists ourselves.
Thanks for the ping. This is good news.
I'm with you 99%. My disagreement is that the "all-or-nothing" conservatives are not necessarily "selfish," but naive and suffering from tunnel-vision.
Dubya done good bump!
Who would you consider more "conservative" Hugo Chavez who is strongly anti-abortion and even wanted the ban written into his country's constitution or Rudy? Who would you rather see as president?
“Great! Finally, someone who can use actual logic. Now, tell me, going backwards from the point of viability, at what point scientifically does the unborn child stop being a human life? Consider DNA, metabolic activity, growth, movement, response to environment, etc.”
Well, I am not a obstetrician, so all I can give you is my layman’s opinion. From what I’ve read about the fetal development process, conscious awareness arises in the fetal brain, on average, around the 27th week of pregnancy, give or take a couple of weeks, which is about the same time as lung capacity is developed enough for the fetus/baby to survive outside the womb. Before that, the fetus is not a fully independent human apart from its mother, because it cannot breathe outside the womb, plus it lacks the consciousness and self-awareness that makes us human..a person. While it is true that a much younger fetus can respond to painful stimuli, that is merely an autonomic response...the fetus does not have a conscious experience of pain...it does not suffer pain as you and I do when we are injured. To be conservative (no pun intended), the 24th week is a good place to draw the line.
This is just my opinion. YMMV.
A great way to start Wednesday! And a giant step toward banning abortion. Hallelujah!
Actually, the 14th Amendment covers Congressional authority in this manner, but doesn’t allow the Court to legalize abortion.
Please. That's exactly the question. Why would I trust Rudy to appoint when I wouldn't trust him to sit?
Unity? No liberals. That's Unity. ...and yes, as it stands right now, should he choose to enter the race, Fred T. is viable. Blackbird.
No, it’s not a stretch. If a person cannot be deprived of life except by due process of law, Congress has the right to step in and prevent the taking of that life. The only way the 14th wouldn’t apply is if someone made the ludicrous argument that a baby is not a person.
BTTT.
Then Casey moved the right to abort to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, IIRC.
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.