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 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 921-933 next last
To: Spiff
Rudy is deeply saddened.

My first thought. BTTT! for the unborn.

Rudy says he'll appoint "Strict Constructionist" to the SC. Ask yourself this. Would you want Rudy sitting on the SC today? Why would anyone want him to be the next President? Blackbird.

121 posted on 04/18/2007 7:41:12 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST (A vote for rudyputin IS a vote for the hildabeast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Better luck with Rudy getting a judge like alito scalia or roberts then with any damn dem. For all the so-called conservatives that sat 2006 out and threaten to do so on 08 victories like these will be more difficult to achieve. When a candidate emerges that can win and I mean win we had better get behind him 100%.
122 posted on 04/18/2007 7:41:23 AM PDT by mimaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Spiff
HOORAY!!!

REAL conservatives are PRO-LIFE... PERIOD!!!

123 posted on 04/18/2007 7:41:32 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle ("On 11/07/06, 'true' conservatives and 'rat traitors joined forces to bring Sharia law to America.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Romney will do this as well.
124 posted on 04/18/2007 7:41:52 AM PDT by sevenbak (My soul standeth fast in that liberty in the which God hath made us free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Excellent news.


125 posted on 04/18/2007 7:42:04 AM PDT by newzjunkey (Hillary, Rudy, Obama: The presidency is not a coronation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CMAC51

I agree. From everything I’ve heard, a lot of this has more to do with how certain issues can be brought into an opinion. That is why I say that we need the “right” case to overturn Roe, the trick is to figure out just what that is.


126 posted on 04/18/2007 7:42:16 AM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: deputac
If this was the clause though, it’s the first time I can remember in decades where it came in handy for a good cause.

I hear you on that one. Of course, while I'm a little squemish about the federalism issues surrounding this, I have to say to the libs: live by the commerce clause, die by the commerce clause. (No pun intended)

127 posted on 04/18/2007 7:42:39 AM PDT by sola_fide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci; All

The Court rejected the rigid trimester framework of Roe in the Casey decision. Please read that to understand the undue burden standard that’s now used.


128 posted on 04/18/2007 7:43:09 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Milwaukee_Guy

From what I remember, all the testimony in the lower court cases showed that there would NEVER be a situation where a partial birth abortion would be needed to save the mother.


129 posted on 04/18/2007 7:43:14 AM PDT by deputac (NYPD & FDNY: The Other Twin Towers of New York)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: NYRepublican72
>>>>>Roe protects first trimester abortions, not those in the later stages.

Wrong. For all intents and purposes, Roe v Wade makes abortion on demand legally acceptable for whatever reason a woman chooses throughout her entire pregnancy. Until now. This is why removing the most heinous type of abortion procedure and upholding the ban on PBA was such a historic decision.

130 posted on 04/18/2007 7:43:20 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

God, thank You for answering our prayers! Please continue to work on the hearts and minds of all people, who’s eyes are blinded by the enemy. Amen!


131 posted on 04/18/2007 7:43:36 AM PDT by Linda Sandoval
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Thank God!!!

It was a GRUSOME procedure. I am so happy today! I feel like we have gotten some of our sanity on this issue back.

132 posted on 04/18/2007 7:44:00 AM PDT by dellbabe68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: sevenbak
But 5-4 is still too close, we need a couple more.

Right, and on what should have been a "slam-dunk" decision! PBA is a rare type of abortion, so this decision is not likely to have a real impact on the number of abortions performed each year. It's a start, but we need a decision that impacts on the acceptability of all abortions.

A good decision for example would be one that made it a crime to harm an unborn child during the commission of a crime. Ron Paul FWIW voted against such a measure when he had a chance to show his so-called pro-life credentials.

133 posted on 04/18/2007 7:44:12 AM PDT by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

This ruling is a pyrrhic victory at best. The Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on an abortion procedure. Where does the U.S. Constitution give the federal government the power to ban abortions? What’s sad is that this was never even at issue (whether the feds have the power in the first place).

What should’ve happened is this ban should’ve been struck down as a violation of state rights; and only then, Stenberg v Carhart should’ve been reversed so that states could pass their own ‘partial birth’ abortion bans if they so choose. I’m unsurprised that Kennedy authored this decision.


134 posted on 04/18/2007 7:44:28 AM PDT by AntiGuv (sorry .. i couldn't resist!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

DONT FORGET THAT ROOTY SAID THAT RUTH BUZZY GINSBURG WAS A GOOD CHOICE AS A JUDGE !!!


135 posted on 04/18/2007 7:44:39 AM PDT by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super Walmart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Hallelujah!


136 posted on 04/18/2007 7:45:22 AM PDT by redgirlinabluestate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Respect for life will have a domino effect...and may in turn prevent future mass murders.


137 posted on 04/18/2007 7:45:53 AM PDT by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Spiff

Praise the Lord. Maybe His blessings can now be loosed on the nation. Away from the culture of death!


138 posted on 04/18/2007 7:45:58 AM PDT by Paul_B
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deputac

A simple c-section would take care of any medical problems a mother might be having at that late stage in pregnancy—babies are capable of surviving outside the womb now at what? 22-24 weeks?? Why murder a baby to supposedly “save” a mother, when BOTH could be saved?? Even if the mother didn’t want to keep the child, at least the child would be ALIVE to put up for adoption or fostering or whatever!

PBA is NEVER necessary. NEVER.


139 posted on 04/18/2007 7:46:26 AM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --Bible Thumper and Proud! RUN, FRED, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Roe does not make abortion on demand legally acceptable in the third trimester. I am pretty sure in most states, you can’t get an abortion at that point in time unless it’s to save the life of the mother.

Yes, abortion rights have expanded since Roe, but Roe pretty much allows states to regulate as time goes on.

I have to reread Casey, but I don’t think it’s as broad of an expansion of Roe as Ninofan makes it out to be.


140 posted on 04/18/2007 7:46:26 AM PDT by NYRepublican72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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