Posted on 02/06/2009 11:14:55 AM PST by jroneil
A month before his death, Fr. Richard Neuhaus said, “Whatever else it is, the pro-life movement of the last thirty-plus years is one of the most massive and sustained expressions of citizen participation in the history of the United States.” Neuhaus neglected to mention that the pro-life movement has endured for so long precisely because it has failed. On Jan. 22, the March for Life turned 36 years old. In that time, Republican presidents have appointed eight Supreme Court justices, but Roe v. Wade remains law.
(Excerpt) Read more at amconmag.com ...
The abortion cult is a porn and free sex cult of death. Let me see how in this tanking economy whores are going to fare compared to folkes who work hard for a future and for life.
Let the fems join the narcissist mysoginist Obamites all day long. These psychedelic chocking hell holes of homosexuality and pornography will be sight enough to see where things will go.
Is the author implying that Bush would not risk his clout and by extension his ability to fight terrorism by supporting real antiabortion measures? If that is the case, does this pusillanimity also explain Bush's failure to check spending? To enforce the borders? To defend his Iraq policy?
Oh puhleeze. Surely they aren't so delusional as to think Obama would have done this.
No matter who is President, pro-lifers do have somewhere to go. We can always go to God. Nothing is too hard for Him.
Bush did support anti-abortion legislation. Unfortunately, the author seems to forget that the office of President does not write or pass legislation. He can only sign off on what is presented to him by Congress. He can give verbal support, i.e. encourage Congress critters to write and pass legislation, but of course, they are under absolutely no obligation to do so.
The best thing a President can do to aid the pro-life cause is to make appropriate selections for judicial candidates. Seems to me that Bush did fine on that.
And that is an extremist position shared by a microscopic percentage of Americans, most of whom are not willing to let socialist and totalitarian measures creep into complete control of the nation, while radical pro-lifers celebrate the "victories" they achieve by compromising any and every other issue on grounds of its "practical insignificance".
The author is totally missing the mark when he says "pro-lifers are the GOP’s useful idiots". They (meaning the extremists) are the Democratic Party's useful idiots, who keep scaring big chunks of the voting population into voting Democrat in spite of distaste over its socialist bent, and a big part of the reason why the socialist Democratic Party is able to keep pushing the GOP further and further into socialism, to the point where we can't even discern a difference in goverment spending levels when Republicans vs Democrats are in power. The GOP knows it can pass trillions of dollars of new tax-and-restribute schemes (i.e. buy votes), without losing a single one of the extreme pro-life voters.
IMO, that is why John McCain was the GOP nominee: the conservative base was split when Huckabee assumed the 'purist' role and the rest of the field was split among Romney, Thompson, Rudy, etc. This left the opening for the 'moderate' RINOs and crossover Rats to determine our candidate in the early primaries.
Like almost everything in The American Conservative, this article sounds as if it was written by a twenty-something who never read history, but who has nevertheless adopted a superior attitude—superior to Fr. Neuhaus, in this case. By the author's reasoning, the ACLU obviously failed in this country. After all, it was founded by Communists in 1920, and over the decades, probably lost 100 times as many legal battles as it won. And yet, look around you. They have been persistent, haven't they?
When the pro-life movement began in 1973, numerous politicians and feminists praised abortion itself as a "good." Just under 20 years later, because of the black eye the "procedure" had earned in the popular mind, the abortion lobby changed its name to the "pro-choice" movement. Today, that name confuses no one, and even feminists say that "no one wants more abortions," but "the option needs to be there." Quite a come-down, for the sacrament of the feminist religion, don't you think?
The number of abortions has shrunk annually since its heyday in the 1980s—from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.1 million or fewer now—even as our population has ballooned. The growth in the number of illegitimate births does not reflect a failure of the pro-life movement, as the bizarrely illogical author suggests, but its success. I'm not endorsing fornication, but the pro-life movement, aided by ultra-sound, has succeeded in teaching even millions of self-indulgent people that a "fetus" is a baby, and childbirth beats murder.
As was not the case in the wake of Roe vs. Wade, the pro-life position is now a consistent winner in national elections. If McCain had had the temerity to make an issue of it, he might have beaten Obomber. The Supreme Court is one vote away from a pro-life majority, and may stay that way for four years or more, since the pro-abortion justices are all old.
In addition, the article omits mention of Pres. Bush's many successful pro-life measures, but maybe he never read about them. In 1989, Maggie Gallagher commented that abortion would be overturned "in about 30 years." I'd say it's on schedule. This is a social movement, young feller, not a video game.
Amen! And He shall not be mocked!
Not true; We can turn to the states, and “Personhood Ammendments”. This will take care of recognizing the peronsonhood (and rights) of the unborn and settle this last civil rights issue!
A state Ammendment by Definition CANNNOT be ruled “unconstitutional”. It may or may not class with federal judicial rulings, however as far as the states goes that baby is a person and worth protecting from “conception” on (life worth untill they commit a crime and due process has convicted them in a jury before ‘their peers’).
The authority to rule on these issues is clearly defined by the 10th Amendment, and while I agree a federal law would give more legal authority to the issue, The states ultimately have the authority, not WashD.C.
State constitutional amendments are struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court fairly routinely.
Romer v. Evans, for instance, comes to mind, although we can produce as many examples as you like given enough time.
If it violates the federal Constitution-- or SCOTUS's interpretation of the federal Constitution-- it certainly can.
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, section 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." (Emphasis added).
Yes, but a “Personhood Amendment” sure (as we know) is NOT, nor would be in any way Contrary to the Constitution!
Romer V. Evans (from what I see was not “struck-down” by the U. S. Supreme Court (which is what you are implying will happen to a Personhood Amendment), but by “state courts”..Which IS Judicial activism by definition since they were BOUND by Their oath to uphold the State of CO’s Constituion, therefore they really had no legal authority to do so. If the wikipedia writeup is correct: The state of CO merely appealed to the US Supreme Court to re-instate their Amendment which was nullifed by lower courts (which really didn’t have the authority to do so): THIS (AND ANY EFFORT TO RULE A ‘PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT’, “Unconstitutional” is JUDICIAL TYRANNY- And I would hope will NOT be tolerated!
You’re welcome to your own vision of how things ought to be, but in the reality the rest of us inhabit Colorado’s Amendment 2 was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court on different grounds than those previously held by state courts.
Now, I’m inclined to think Romer v. Evans was indeed wrongly decided, but the U.S. Supreme Court indeed does overturn state constitutions and constitutional amendments regularly.
Love it or hate, the 14th Amendment exists.
GOD is the First and last Resort!
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.