Posted on 01/23/2012 4:56:01 PM PST by NormsRevenge
President Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court nationalized abortion law, prohibiting states from deciding on the matter. In his written statement, Obama acknowledged that abortion has been a divisive political issue.
Obama, while serving in the Illinois State Legislature and as president of the United States, has taken a hard line on abortion rights.
In his statement on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling, Obama said it reflects the broader principles of America.
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters,” Obama said. “I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.
“While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue -- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption,” Obama said.
“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion. He voted against such legislation at the state level in 2001, 2002 and 2003.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
He lucked out, he was born before Roe v. Wade.
54,000,000 plus never had a chance to 'fulfill their dreams'.
Kinda hard to fulfill your dreams when your parents kill you. Ignorant butthat.
If it is so "fundamental," then why is it hiding in "emanations from penumbras" in the Constitution?
I posted a counter-argument that abortion is banned in the Constitution. I think that my reasoning is just as good as Obama's. From my linked post:
I posted here the idea that the Constitution actually does have a ban on abortion, or at least a protection of life.In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.
I point this out because it was the practice to capitalize all references to God, such as "Him" and "Creator." Following this practice, the gifts of the Creator, namely Rights to Life, Liberty, and Happiness, are capitalized, too. Furthermore, in the preamble to the Constitution, the word Blessings is also capitalized, which I take to mean from the Creator, and Liberty is also capitalized, which is one of the three rights from the Creator mentioned in the Declaration. All this, taken together, tells me that the Founders intended the Constitution to protect the Blessings of the unalienable rights that come from the Creator, and not just to us but to our children and their children.
How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?
From the link in the quoted block quote above:
I recently posted the thought that there is a ban on abortion in the Constitution after all. Here are the salient points:I think there is one bridging phrase to the Declaration of Independence that is in the Constitution, which can be seen as a link to "unalienable rights."
PreambleWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Note the use of the phrase "Blessings of Liberty." They didn't say "liberty," they said "blessings of liberty." They also capitalized Blessings and Liberty. Why?
In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders said:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.Note the use of capitalization for Life, Liberty, and Happiness. Also note that these refer to the rights endowed by the Creator, which would be blessings. By this language, is it possible that Founders meant the Constitution to establish a government that secured the blessing of the unalienable right to Liberty?
Therefore, when they spoke of "securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," wouldn't those referred to as "our posterity" be the unborn children who were also "blessed" with the right to Liberty, and the other unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence?
How can the Founders believe that they were securing Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness for our unborn future if they were also writing abortion into the Constitution
-PJ
We rightly question the morality of the Costa captain but allow President Chivalry-in-Bloom to continue to exterminate the most helpless among us. Raw judicial power doesn’t begin to describe the evil.
Love it. "Fundamental" used to mean that it was actually IN the Constitution's wording.
Y'know . . . like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," or "the Right to Life" in our Declaration of Independence. Sure seem fundamental as all hell, don't it?
But, damn it, I can't find "penumbra, abortion, nor privacy" mentioned anywhere in this Fundamental argument that this pathetic, illegal alien, Kenyan-born ba$tard believes.
No attempt to ask the father, grandparents, other relatives, or any local orphanage if they'd like to take the baby and keep her alive. Even the attending nurse has been forbidden to take the poor infant to the ER to keep her alive. Disgusting!
Infanticide! This man is a monster and has horns on his illegal alien head.
Mr. Obama is simply the most horrid man ever to be President of the United States. He actually applauds the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life. If his view is correct and that it is a “constitutional right” to allow and encourage this wholesale carnage, then how can any decent person of conscience take the oath “to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States.” The modern Democratic party is the greatest internal threat to the well being of the United States since the formation of the Confederacy.
For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of an American president. Obama is a pig!
funny, I was gonna say f**khead, your word is the same but not so rude! :-)
It might go to Scotus. Scotus has overruled itself on more than a few occasions. It would be interesting to see the justices deal with penumbras, emanations and whether or not abortion is protected by a twisted interpretation of the Ninth Amendment as a God given right.
What a hypocritical liar. I can’t believe anyone believes he’s for reducing abortion and promoting adoption, much less anyone involved with abortion.
I've been reading my copy of the Constitution, but I can't find this 'right' to abort in it anywhere. However, I did find this in the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
This seems to be in direct opposition to obama's claim.
You got that right. Obama wouldn’t know a Constitutional right if he taught it in a class in college.
What about the Constitutional rights of the baby to “life”?
Liberals are so confused; They want to protect the most evil and hideous of human life by opposing the death penalty, but want to snuff out the most innocent. You can’t get much more evil than that.
Murder any way you slice it. He will reap his reward some day.
Since when has there been a “fundamental constitutional right” to murder the unborn? Because our country's Democrats support the Culture of Death, we have given women the right to murder their children by simply declaring that the developing embryo is not real, not viable outside the womb, just protoplasm, yeah.
This is a lie because life begins at conception. Reality says we have a person.
We have instances of mothers killing their young children, perhaps because they regretted not getting abortions, so they took a "rain check" on an abortion and thus implemented the Culture of Death. Today murder is against the law, but tomorrow will it be? When will we codify the right of parents to kill their children? Is not that the next logical step in the Culture of Death (in addition to euthanasia of old folks)?
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.