Skip to comments.Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade
Posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:42 PM PST by rabscuttle385
Yesterday, January 22, saw a veritable army of pro-lifers participate in the 35th annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. This demonstration of public sentiment was first held in 1974 to mark the first anniversary of the Supreme Courts Roe v. Wade decision. In that decision, of course, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Since then, an estimated 50,000,000 babies have been killed in the womb in the United States.
As we observed yesterday, ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
...at yesterdays rally, Gray told those gathered that the battle for life had to be won at the federal level, that it was not enough to send the issue back to the states, where abortion could be legal in one state and illegal in the next.
Of course, that strategy overlooks the fact that abortion, like other crimes, was criminalized on the state level prior to Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade that interjected the federal government into the abortion issue in the first place and at the same time made abortion on demand legal throughout the United States. Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Fortunately, there exists a simpler, more practical strategy to protect life (and other things we cherish), provided for in Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. This section allows Congress to strip the Supreme Court of any cases (e.g., abortion cases) where the Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction. Congress can also limit the jurisdiction of any lower federal courts, since Congress created those courts. Congress could make Roe v. Wade a nonproblem overnight, since by prohibiting the federal courts from hearing abortion cases the states could then put back in place anti-abortion laws.
This remedy has already been introduced by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) in the new (111th) Congress as H.R. 539, the We the People Act. H.R. 539 would remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts from cases related to the free exercise or establishment of religion; the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction (e.g., abortion); the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation (same-sex marriage).
The legislation would also prohibit the federal courts from relying on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in the above list. In other words, it would remove Roe v. Wade and similar decisions from judicial precedent.
Hmmm ... 50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!
Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!
Of course, we all know that Ron Paul is just another “fringe kook”! /sarc
Not this insane radical left congress..........
The author of this piece apparently hasn’t heard of the results of the last election.
Not only will new restrictions on abortion not be put in place, but the present minimal restrictions will be wiped away.
It is likely that taxpayer funding for abortions will expand.
IOW, the train is headed in the opposite direction.
The Constitution... what’s that?
The only positive out of this election (besides no more McCain) is that Obama was pretty shy about the abortion issue and actually it was rarely brought up...and tried at least flaunted some of his pro-life supporters. Not to mention, the appointment of Ray Lahood in the cabinet. I remember in 92 the Dems were trying to outdo each other on the issue. Not to mention, Clinton had a pro-abortion litmus test for his cabinet. It gives a glimmer of hope that at least public opinion is turning.
Excellent idea: HR 539. I shall write supportive letters to my political leaders and follow its progress.
Individual states could decree that life begins at conception.
I agree w/ this - I would assume this means it gets passed down to the states/local govts. for a vote so it is state by state and more federalist? If that is the case - love her or hate her, that’s why I was a fan of Gov. Palin because she kept saying she wanted states to have more control and less govt. intervention. Nobody and No law is perfect but this article is my ideal for how govt. should be run.
“another federal solution ...”
Ummmm, don’t they mean “another FINAL solution ...”
If Obama has one pro-life member of his cabinet, or high-ranking in his administration, let me know and I’ll believe he doesn’t have a pro-choice litmus test. He said he has one for judges. He’s against the Born Alive Protection act, he’s for FOCA and wants it to be one of his first acts, he’s reversed Bush’s order banning funds to agencies performing abortions abroad, he’s restarted funding for embryonic stemcell research, he’s removed some of the protection for medical personnel declining to participate in abortions and FOCA will take that further.
Obama’s propaganda glamour machine will be called in to go to work on public opinion regarding abortion. I am not optimistic.
I know you're being sarcastic, but the Ron Paul hatred was so intense prior to the primaries here that there were some FReepers accusing him of being pro-abortion just because Paul didn't support a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.
I'm all for a constitutional amendment, but in the short term I would rather see R v W overturned and states deal with abortion. Of course, Eternal Vigilance will vehemently disagree with me.
“50,000,000 ... that probably would have turned SOCIAL SECURITY into a minor Annoyance Instead of the Major PITB it has become!!
Shortsighted Liberal MORONS!!”
Killing innocents trumps their social programs, I guess. Sad.
Don’t forget the shortages of healthcare workers, etc. Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing. It’s almost assured there were genius innovators in there (not that it makes the other lives less valuable, just giving a concrete example of the loss).
“Who knows what 50,000,000 Americans would be doing.”
Good point. And one of them might have had the cure for heart disease, and another for cancer.
You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception.
It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.
I asked a woman who was pro choice to prove to me that the babies that were being killed were not humans, and of course she could not. She tried to change the subject to viability, and I told her I was not interested in viability, only whether or not the baby was a human.
She tried to use the common liberal BS, and I called her on everyone of her illogical points. Then of course she got mad. I told her that I pray for every woman who has had an abortion. She asked me why would I pray for them. I replied that I would not want to meet GOD if I had killed one of his children. She turned white, and I asked her if she had an abortion. She said yes.
I told her to repent,and to seek GOD’s forgiveness, and to save as many children as possible from being aborted. I do not know if she has repented. Pray for her.
I know that when we meet the MAKER we will feel the suffering and pain that we caused in this world as part of our judgment. I would not want to feel the pain and suffering of these poor defenseless children that are being killed.
GOD save us.
The question of citizenship/personhood in the law is traditionally reserved to the individual states as intended by the framers. These matters are best addressed on the state level. This is why I have always supported federalist candidates and will continue to do so.
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.