In his book, "The Audacity of Hope," Mr. Obama offers this explanation for his opposition: "It mandated lifesaving measures for premature babies (the bill didn't mention that such measures were already the law) - but also extended personhood to pre-viable fetuses, thereby effectively overturning Roe v. Wade."
I'm not a lawyer. But this sounds like complete BS to me. How can a state legislature overturn a Supreme Court ruling?
I would love to think my state legislature could overturn the Supremes when they issue an idiotic ruling, but I don't think they can. I think Bambi is trying to BS us.
I predict Alan Colmes will fall for this, too.
posted on 08/15/2008 9:28:46 AM PDT
(Honk if you miss Licorice.)
Agreed, I believe BO’s career is based on BS.
posted on 08/15/2008 9:35:56 AM PDT
(DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
From what I read, even the statement was BS -
it did NOT grant “personhood” to pre-viable “fetuses”.
Of course, I think our society SHOULD “grant” personhood to all babies, born and unborn. This is stupid anyway, only God is justified in “granting” personhood or in taking innocent life.
posted on 08/15/2008 11:19:35 AM PDT
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson