Posted on 04/18/2007 8:32:50 AM PDT by jacknhoo
“This is the first legal crack in the crumbling Roe v. Wade foundation, and is the first, necessary step toward banning the horrific practice of abortion in this nation,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “If partial-birth abortions are unconstitutional, then all abortion should be as well. There is little difference between a second-trimester partial-birth abortion and a 12-week suction abortion. In fact, the suction abortion is probably more gruesome because it involves complete dismemberment of a live baby.”
Unfortunately a very small step. We still need one or two more Supreme Court justices before Roe is in trouble.
Best news all day.
My impression about this ruling is that while it affirms the ban on only the most grisly form of abortion, it ALSO re-affirms the “right” (disguised as “privacy”) of women to kill their kids at will.
I’m not so sure that anti-abortion folks have much beyond the partial-birth ban to celebrate here.......
"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
If it prevents the murder of 1 human being it’s worth celebrating.
PBA law is ripe for a new challenge.
If we can learn anything from the Left, it is that the way to get things done is incrementally. It was by increments that we have reached the point where it is legal to dismember a live baby and it will be in increments, God willing, that we return to a civilized society.
Hopefully all our tax money sent to the UN for abortions in other countries we have to fund (for some unknown reason) will now stop.
You’re so right!
I agree with you 100%. But I'm still worried that once Roe v. Wade is overturned we'll have years of legislative work ahead of us to undue all the abortion bans that actually AFFIRM certain kinds of abortions while banning others.
It’s the very first step forward at the level of SCOTUS.
Pro-aborts will emphasize that it did not actually ban any form of abortion, but distinguished this procedure from “normal” abortions.
Pro-lifers will emphasize that it shows that legislators and courts have a right to put limitations on abortion, and will try to roll the “abortion right” back step by step if necessary.
Last fall’s elections were a grave setback to the pro-life cause. This decision changes the momentum once more, and puts the pro-aborts on the defensive.
Last fall’s Democrat victories were NOT a vote in favor of abortion, since most of the candidates ran as blue dog conservatives. But the PERCEPTION is very important, since it will determine how openly Democrat senators can shoot down judicial candidates on the basis of abortion if there is another opening in the court. With Roberts and Alito, they didn’t dare openly oppose pro-life candidates, although they muttered to their base out of the sides of their mouths. This decision may warn them that they still need to be cautious.
Blessings to God, however, that at least there are 5 persons in American government, who recognize that life, even some life has value and that only God, has the authority to decide when to end that life.
(Not that she used class as an activist training ground or anything.)
Curious. Are there any conservatives on FreeRepublic that take a pro-choice position? If so, where is your limit?
Do you realize that beautiful ultrasound picture would be considered ‘hate speech’ by pro-babykillers if you showed it to an expecting mother? :*(
Wackos.
Not if NARAL Rudy is nominated.
Should the specious “right to privacy” afforded to women who wish to kill their kids (in private) be extended to anyone who wishes to murder someone in “private” where there is a genuine and right to privacy? And going one step further, should that slightly different murder be financed with taxpayer funding?
My understanding of Roe is that it is based on a perverse interpretation of the 4th amendment.....am I mistaken?
” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
It seems like invoking the Roe-style interpretation of the 4th amendment would have also precluded them from jailing Kevorkian, based upon the same “rights” of his patients....
(I’m just grumbling aloud and in public, FWIW)
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.