Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 01/23/2012 3:04:00 PM PST by NYer
>Monday marks the first full day of the 40th year of Roe v. Wade, but together we can make it the decade when Roe is overturned. With a president committed to defending life and appointing originalist judges, we will turn the tide for life and human dignity.
I believe that all life is precious. I know life begins at conception. I know that every person, every child conceived in the womb, has a right to life. I know that life is a right endowed by our Creator, that it is inalienable, laid down in the Declaration of Independence, and should be guaranteed under the Constitution. The right to life is the first right. Without its protection, no other rights matter.
This anniversary is both a day of sadness for the more than 40 million babies who have been killed since Roe v. Wade and a day of hope as more and more Americans embrace a culture of life and as more and more young people march in Washington and around the country in support of life.
The 14th Amendment states explicitly: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The Constitution is clear. The meaning is inconvenient.
I have learned lessons about the value of all life from my children. I grieve for the children lost and for the mothers who have been deceived by a society selling selfishness. I am thankful for the faithful workers around the country who serve at pro-life pregnancy centers providing women honest information and additional choices.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Rick Santorum is my candidate. I just hope that he shows more spark — soon! Maybe tonight.
His resolve in the face of the smears and grotesque insults speaks volumes about his character. What has always attracted me to conservatism is its intellectual consistency across the issues, be they economic, social or foreign policy. At the very root of these is the concept of natural law and the sanctity of each individual life. Rick gets it.
These are the things he’s based his “Faith, Family, Freedom Tour” campaign on.
Well worth watching for his life comments, and over all:
http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Rick-Santorum-Continues-SC-Campaign-in-Florence/10737427132/
(Florence, SC) Meet and greet, then talk and questions start at about 16:20
You can make a semantic argument that the text of the amendment can be interpreted to outlaw abortion, but that's not originalism, that's textualism. There's no eveidence the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for it to outlaw abortion.
And my adopted daughter will be 42 in October. Her birth mother told her flat out that if abortion had been legal at the time, she would have aborted her. Thank Heaven she is as old as she is. She missed it by a year and a half.
The birth mother did give the two of them up and I was so glad for them. I didn’t get them until they were 10 and 12, but such a delight.
BTTT for life. Blessings for all who march for life today in Washington, D. C. and elsewhere.
What a testimony you have. Thanks!
IMHO, one need not look past the preamble. The founders clearly stated that the document was intended for their posterity. One must go through some incredible contortions to argue that it does not refer to generations yet unborn.
The preamble does not enumerate any powers.
If the Constitution created a national government of limited, enumerated powers, and left all other powers reserved to the states, then it’s either explicitly enumerated among the powers of the national government, or it still belongs to the states.
I don’t see any way talking ourselves out of that is going to end well.
Explain to me how something that is in opposition to that very mission or purpose explicitly outlined in the preamble could be considered anything but, "unconstitutional."
You can just as easily justify every federal welfare program arguing that you're taking care of the Founder's posterity.
I don't disagree with what you're trying to do, but I don't think you're considering the unintended consequences of the means you're wanting to employ.
As set forth in the preamble, the purpose and intent of the Constitution is to (among other things), "...provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." If they intended the document to be in effect for people born 200 years after its adoption, surely they meant for it to apply to those born within nine months of its adoption. Anything that would deprive persons (born or unborn) of the Constitution's applicability would be at best, inconsistent with, and at worst, in direct opposition to, the stated purposes of the Constitution, ergo, "unconstitutional".
IMHO, one must delve into the "penumbras and emanations," to argue otherwise.
http://www.foundersrevolution.net/2011/10/on-general-welfare.html
I might agree with you that you don't have to read past the Preamble if I had never read past the Preamble, or devoted any time to researching the Constitution, or read history beyond the New Deal. I've spent no small amount of time researching the Constitution, the different methods of interpretation, and the history of it's creation and the debates and discussion that produced it. All of that tells me you are very much mistaken about what power that sentence was intended take from the states and give to the national government.
On the tv news (CBS?) they were talking about a couple of women, who were (possibly) helped with their eye sight because of embryonic stem cells. They used an “extra embryo” which was taken from a couple who used the embryos they needed so she could get pregnant.
Is it a coincidence that they broke this story on the day of the Pro-LIFE march in D.C.? Are they trying to stick it to pro-lifers with this blatant DISrespect for life?
“On abortion, he (Santorum) is one of many senators who vote pro-life. The difference is that he is personally responsible for making sure a lot of these votes occur in the first place: He was an architect of the effort to ban partial-birth abortion, a strategy that energized the pro-life movement and allowed it to go on the political offensive.”
snip
http://www.heymiller.com/2010/08/the-fate-of-rick/
Pa always told me if somebody has to go to great lengths to tell you how smart they are, they probably aren't...
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.