Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOX NEWS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN
Fox News Channel ^ | 18 April 2007 | Fox News Channel

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]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 921-933 next last
To: scratcher

Thank you!


861 posted on 04/18/2007 11:10:25 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Read the most important part again, skippy:

But even if that were true, the law once made a distinction that allowed you to own an African. The exact procedure by which some evil bag of garbage in a black robe determines it should be legal to rip a small child limb from limb has no more bearing on this discussion than the evil that allowed people to employ Africans as automatic cotton-harvesting machines.

862 posted on 04/18/2007 11:11:27 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
Sadly, I have no doubt in my mind that many of you would vote for a Hugo Chavez clone if he was anti-abortion.

Go over to DU if you want to serve up that stupidity. Ripping a small child's limbs off is not a conservative activity, and neither is apologizing for it, which you are heavily engaged in on this thread.

863 posted on 04/18/2007 11:13:26 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta
From this thread, many have written that abortion is THE issue that makes one a conservative and the ONLY issue that really matters. All of the other issues are only peripheral.

I'm pretty sure you're screwing that up. What they said is that you have to be pro-life to be a true conservative.

864 posted on 04/18/2007 11:19:28 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: hillarynot

Katrina’s feeling very bad!


865 posted on 04/18/2007 11:20:40 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (A pacifist sees no distinction between the arsonist and the fireman--Freeper ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: jrooney
To ALL GW Bashers - How do you feel now? This only happened because of GW! Thank God for this great man and great president. We are lucky to have him. For those of you that have abandoned him, bash him on FR and stab him in the back, shame on you! GW, a great president that deserves more respect from conservatives and republicans.

You are so right! What would have happened on this if <shudder> Al Gore would have been president? </shudder> What would have happened if <shudder> John F'n Kerry would have been president? </shudder> What would have happened if <twitch> John McCain would have been president? </twitch>

Anybody who has credibly contended for the job since 2000 would have been worse than GWB on just about any topic you can mention. If we sign up to the defeatism and negativism blasted daily into the ears and eyes of the unwashed by the MSM, we are truly hosed in 2008.

Ideological purity is great fun if you like to lose every time, viz the Libertarians.

866 posted on 04/18/2007 11:21:06 PM PDT by SFConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

” In other words, the fact that the law won’t stop a single abortion is pretty much why it was upheld.”

Uh no, did you actually read the opinion? Kennedy specifically mentions how it might encourage some women to carry their pregnancies to full-term.


867 posted on 04/18/2007 11:25:07 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

21 Weeks


868 posted on 04/18/2007 11:27:13 PM PDT by Verax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
To further clarify, Kennedy makes a distinction between prohibiting and stopping by discouragement. He CLEARLY thinks the law may very well discourage some women from getting abortions, thus decreasing the amount of abortions. In other words, it will save some lives. From the opinion: "It is a reasonable inference that a necessary effect of the regulation and the knowledge it conveys will be to encourage some women to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number of late-term abortions. The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand. The State’s interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion."
869 posted on 04/18/2007 11:32:46 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

“All for the sake of a ban that won’t stop a single abortion. Yippee.”

Misleading to say the least. As I said before, Kennedy clearly believes that this will discourage some women from getting late-term abortions. I think he’s right. Therefore, I believe it DOES have the effect of saving some lives.


870 posted on 04/18/2007 11:56:16 PM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 771 | View Replies]

To: deputac
Kennedy came over

It may be unanswerable, but why?

What a great decision! The majority will sleep well tonight, while the ghouls will be tossing in their sleep.

871 posted on 04/19/2007 12:07:58 AM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp (We're living in the Dark Ages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
However, you must also take into account the mood of the USA outside Free Republic and the mood is as nasty against conservatives as it was against liberals after Jimmy Carter's term.

Wow...feel the paranoia!

Wow...Look who the Sheeple voters in America made Senate Majority Leader last November!


872 posted on 04/19/2007 1:28:14 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
Whether the congresscritters explicitly based their bill on the 14th Amendment or not, it clearly grants them the authority to take this action, and not a single thing about it would be different if they had based it on the 14th.

You're absolutely wrong there. The 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment and no more than that amendment. That means Congress can stop states from violating a woman's right to abortion. Even if someday in the future the 14th no longer protects such a right, and even if an unborn child were protected as a 14th Amendment "person", Congress could then --at most-- prevent state actors from performing abortions. "No State" means exactly what it says: No State. It doesn't mean "No citizen" or "No doctor". In other words, the 14th Amendment -- like most of the Constitution -- restrains *government*, not private citizens. It never has and never will give Congress the power to regulate the behavior of non-government actors. Which is why conservatives are stuck grasping at the straws of the commerce clause and playing let's pretend. So much for the lie that we just want to overturn Roe and send the matter back to the states. Yeah right.

873 posted on 04/19/2007 3:18:25 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
the Federal Government is going to ban a particular practice and we are going to take away the choice from the states,

Good grief. No doubt she said that with a straight face too. "It seems rather odd for this Court to be concerned about stepping on the toes of the states." LOL and touché Justice Scalia.

874 posted on 04/19/2007 3:28:49 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan
In other words, it will save some lives.

You have no way of knowing that any more than Kennedy does. Besides, I'm not an ends justifies the means kind of person. So even if this law actually stops an abortion or two, I still wouldn't support it. Either we stick to the Constitution and return abortion to the states or we're no better than liberals. We can't have it both ways.

875 posted on 04/19/2007 4:04:02 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

No doubt the commerce clause issue will be raised in a future case. We all know why the supporters of abortion didn’t really fight on that issue.

As for the SCOTUS, I just don’t see the votes. Scalia is extremely shaky on that issue as demonstrated by his vote in Raich. His decision to join the concurrence today likely means very little given his history. Of the three dissenters in Raich, only Thomas remains on the Court. Souter would not flip-flop on the issue just because it had to do with abortion. Breyer wouldn’t either. Ginsburg and Stevens are the only two that I can see seriously flip-flopping (and no doubt somehow managing to keep a straight face the whole time). It looks to me that, at most, there are three votes for striking it down for the reasons you suggest.

Also, I doubt any lower federal appeals court is going to strike down the ban on those grounds. My hunch is that such a challenge will never make it to SCOTUS.


876 posted on 04/19/2007 4:12:33 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Silverback
I don't recall asking your opinion, yet you sent me 5 posts, all of which were personal attacks.

Go away.

877 posted on 04/19/2007 4:58:15 AM PDT by jude24 (Seen in Beijing: "Shangri-La is in you mind, but your Buffalo is not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 862 | View Replies]

To: jude24; xzins; Mr. Silverback
Considering there has never, ever been a legal system that considered abortion either homicide or murder, this cannot be true.

In California if you kill an unborn fetus in an attack on the mother, it is murder.

The difference between a murder and a "procedure" in California depends upon whether or not the perpetrator has a medical license.

878 posted on 04/19/2007 5:29:30 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 509 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

In the face of a clearly viable human being, you say so what?

If that child is a living human, you are saying the right to murder is a states’ right.

I don’t like where that is going to in face of the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness!


879 posted on 04/19/2007 5:32:41 AM PDT by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

In the face of a clearly viable human being, you say so what?

If that child is a living human, you are saying the right to murder is a states’ right.

I don’t like where that is going to in face of the right to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness!


880 posted on 04/19/2007 5:32:48 AM PDT by BillM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 841-860861-880881-900 ... 921-933 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson