Skip to comments.This time, Roe vs. Wade really could hang in the balance
Posted on 10/05/2008 12:01:08 PM PDT by markomalley
WASHINGTON -- Every four years, defenders of abortion rights proclaim that the fate of Roe vs. Wade hangs on the outcome of the presidential election.
This year, they may be right.
Through most of the 1990s and until recently, the Supreme Court had a solid 6-3 majority in favor of upholding the right of a woman to choose abortion. But the margin has shrunk to one, now that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is retired and has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
And Justice John Paul Stevens, a leader of the narrow majority for abortion rights, is 88.
"Clearly, Roe is on the line this time," said Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen, a former lawyer for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It is quite clear they have four votes against it. If the next president appoints one more, the odds are it will be overruled."
Some advocates worry that the perennial cries of "Roe is falling" has had the effect of muting such claims.
"What we find scary is that people don't understand what's at stake," said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way. "In the next four years, one to as many as three Supreme Court justices may step down, and they all will come from the liberal end of the court."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Re: R v W hangs in the balance.
One can only hope so.
Obama Doesnt Want His Daughters Punished with a Baby
CNN on Obamas Infant Born Alive Act Rejection
Jill Stanek on Obama and Born Alive Infant Protection Act (MUST SEE)
Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
Explosive Audio Found Obama arguing against BAIPA
Babies left to die!
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
The islamofascists can blow us all to bits, but do NOT take away a woman’s reproductive rights !!!
Please begin using the terms “rights for the unborn” as much as possible when discussing abortion. Pro-abortioners are winning the language battle when they say “abortion rights” or the even slicker “reproductive rights” — we much emphasize “equal rights for the unborn”
Summary: It’s better to flush our Country down the tubes, than lose our “right” to kill our Babies, which are of course, our Country’s future, as well.
Thanks for clearing that up for us, LA Slimes.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The elderly should think long and hard about their vote, too. Obama touts killing babies (for the greater good, who wants to be punished with a baby), so it’s reasonable to assume that he won’t cavil about about offing old folks who no longer ‘contribute’ to the economy, a.k.a. euthanasia. Just think how much money his universal health insurance would save, not to mention Social Security. He’ll make it their patriotic duty to commit suicide. And if they won’t, their loving families will be told to help them make the right decision, or else.
I posted this on another forum, but it is what I want to repeat why I think we are down in the polls, because we are fighting the wrong thing. We need to get back on track to what is important...
I don’t understand why the McCain campaign focuses on what made them go up in the polls recently. The first was after the Saddleback church interview where the discussion was on abortion and McCain said he was very pro-life. Obama said that the time life begins was above his pay grade. They then learned from Fox and others that he had voted for late-term abortion and the discussion of the Born-Alive act, where he voted to let babies die after surviving their abortion. People saw him as a cold-calculating pro-abortion politician. McCain discussed the vital choice of the Supreme Court Justices and it was reflected by a big bounce in the polls.
The second time the McCain bounced in the polls was after the Republican Convention, where there was discussions on this and his service to his country, being a hero and fighting for the principles of what America holds deeply.
The high office at the Vatican is even discussing recently the importance of pro-life voting, why aren’t we discussing it? I think if people would get their mind off their money and what is important for our country, they will remember why they need to vote for McCain. They just need to be reminded!
Why not? The founders of this free republic put the rights of the unborn [that's you and me] on an equal footing with their own when they stated the ultimate purpose of the U.S. Constitution: "...to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Even if Roe v. Wade ever were overturned, which seems unlikely given the weight given to precedents, it would simply leave the issue up to the citizens of the several states, where it rightfully belonged all along. The worst that could happen to mothers who want to kill their unborn child is that they may have to travel further to find a legal abortion clinic. You don't hear of pro-abortion types offering to pay transportation for poor women to get to abortion clinics. Abortion is big business, both for those involved in it directly and as a fundraising theme for Democratic candidates.
States have no right to alienate unalienable rights.
There. Fixed it.
LA Times? aren’t more people for abortion, maybe this is a scare tactic.
But wait, didn’t some attorney say just yesterday in one of the posted articles that,”Roe vs. Wade is a lost cause.”?!
HA! I found the link:
If we’re only one justice away, that’s like being down by a field goal at the end of the 3rd quarter, and going home!
God have mercy upon justice Stevens ... he’s a foot away from hell for his rejection of infanticide bans. But I’m sure, like most liberal elites, he thinks of himself as an enlightened secualrist protecting ‘rights’ ... while the blood of slaughtered children drips from his fingers.
It’s sad to say, but women have been having abortions for a very, very long time. All Roe v. Wade did was make women feel better about their “choice” to abort by making killing shops safe and legal. Just as euthanasia in Europe is detestable, so then is abortion. It’s still taking a life either way.
The way I see it, and let me say I am the mother of 4 who believes in the sanctity of life, and I am adamantly against abortion and Roe v. Wade. However, I also believe my “right to choose” comes from God (free will) and not some Supreme Court ruling. I have free will to do anything I want to do: lie, cheat, steal, murder, refuse Jesus, etc. But there will be consequences for those choices and I know that, so I don’t do those things. The federal government had no business putting forth a ruling about abortion and making women in precarious situations believe it’s okay to murder the unborn without consequence.
And one other thing: I believe that bluntness is necessary in the cesspool culture we are raising our kids in. Parents need to teach their daughters to be modest and ladylike and focus on being good wives and mothers, and to keep their legs closed. They also need to be teaching their sons to be respectful of women, to focus on being good husbands and providers, and not let them fall in to pornography, and keep their pants zipped!
You are exactly right. The thing is that most people ignore the fact that when this country is doing the right thing, God will bless it as he has in the past.
I get accused of being a one issue voter and that’s fine with me. In my eyes, abortion and the other culture of life issues are the ones that will make or break this nation. If we continue to murder the unborn, guilt the elderly and sick into suicide or euthanasia, if we continue to create life to destroy it in the name of science, if we allow the cloning of humans I fear the wrath we deserve will not be long in coming.
And this is the exact OPPOSITE of what kids will be taught if Obama and his minions get their way.
True, but "liberty" is another of those rights, and for 89 years after the Declaration of Independence nearly half of the states OK'd slavery.
Even if we had one more pro-life justice on the Supreme Court, I wouldn't count on the Court sweeping away the last 35 years' worth of rulings, and even if they did, activist lawyers at lower levels would try to render their decision as meaningless as possible. There would be more hope if it was left to the states, so some states could go back to strict restrictions...just as some states were able to end slavery within their borders before 1861. It's not ideal, but the best that might be achievable given the present strength of the pro-death forces.
If Barack wins, even before there are any Supreme Court vacancies, he'll be trying to sweep away any state restrictions on abortion on demand all the time, including partial birth abortion, and sweeping away protections for babies who survive an abortion. That's his track record.
Absolutely. They say the Roe might be overturned like it was a bad thing.
Seven of the nine justices were picked by Republicans, and not one of the nine recognizes the unalienable right to life of the unborn person. The best you can get out of them is an argument over the “lawful” way to butcher them.
And McCain's is support for the destruction of human embryos, the funding of Planned Parenthood to the tune of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, and the belief that states' rights trump the unalienable right to life.
Most of the folks here have picked their poison, but as for me, I don't willingly drink poison.
For the life of me I can't understand why some Christians and Jews support the genocide of the unborn. When HE calls the rolls and they must stand before His throne for judgment surly they must answer for the way they voted in pro-genocide politicians.
Whether it is the wholesale slaughter of living men, women or children or the unborn it is still carries one name genocide.
Obama's spinning/lying went in several directions, but the end result has been to obfuscate the issue with almost demonic brilliance, even going so far as to misdirect the public toward the very, very rare survival of an abortion attempt, as if a 'fetus' scheduled for abortion accidentally survived the abortion attempt and foes of Roe v Wade are trying to force medical stand-by for all abortions on the chance that this extremely rare occurrence happens. THAT IS THE LIE UPON WHICH HE'S DEPENDING.
What Obama was protecting was a method to kill alive unborn preemies by forcing their too early deliver, then neglecting these alive, struggling to breathe babies so they die unattended, alone. THAT IS EVIL and Obama was trying to protect that method of killing born alive children.
People have been mislead mightily, to see his work in Illinois as opposing a very rare situation, as if his efforts were heroic in preventing erosion to Roe v Wade. Truth is, the abortion method he was protecting was becoming so prevalent that the United States Congress wrote a bill banning it!
The truth about Barack Obama is much more dark and demonic: Obama knew that the induced labor abortion was becoming popular; Obama worked to prevent this abortion method from being outlawed! Obama worked to protect infanticide, clear, undeniable infanticide, the purposeful birthing of alive babies, to kill them outside of the female's body.
Please, read the post at #28 and #29.
If the mother's truly were in danger a C-Section can be preformed and both lives saved. Had two myself and my grandson was a C-Section birth. Both my DIL or myself would have died if we hadn't had C-Sections. We wanted our children.
True, we have been hearing of it’s increasing use in the past few years. The libs fight hard to kill the innocent, and harder still to preserve the lives of convicted killers.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.