Posted on 05/01/2012 10:22:48 AM PDT by AtlasStalled
On Monday, the state’s highest court unanimously ruled that a proposed amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution, which would define a fertilized egg as a person, is unconstitutional, as it violates the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
As usual, the will of the people subverted by the judiciary. Business as usual in the unfree United States.
Can you say non sequitor? So help me understand here... it’s constitutional to have an abortion, but it’s unconstitutional to label a fertilized zygote a human? Is it unconstitutional because by making it constitutional you are essentially allowing murder through another constitutional act (abortion)?
Last I checked, the courts don’t write law. I’m not sure how it’s unconstitutional to label a fertilized egg human BECAUSE it’s constitutional to have an abortion. Sounds like an agenda to me!
And so many “Christians” in the country say that the economy trumps everything else...can you say BBBAAACKKKSLLIDDINGGG
How much ya bet that Oklahoma is yeat ANOTHER State(like Iowa) that uses the WORTHLESS “Missouri Method” for foisting State “Supreme” Court “Justices” on it’s people!
This is the last liberal defense of murder.....denial of when life begins.
The longer liberals can prevent a full definition of when life begins, the longer they can continue the murder of poor and minority babies.
Yes you do know. So do I and so do the courts.
Is the Oklahoma Supreme Court know for being liberal?
I remember Jefferson and Madison talking about this:
Jefferson: Naw! I think its important for a woman to have the right to murder their child up until its 18th birthday.
Madison: NO! Too much freedom for the individual! Once she pops that sucker out, she can't kill it any more.
Jefferson: Well, 15th birthday?
Madison: How 'bout this: She can kill it at any time up to nine months by partial birth and driving a pair of scissors through its brain.
Jefferson: Gruesome! So lets write it in the secret part of the Constitution that only the SCOTUS can read, 'cause colonial Americans won't be ready for this until the new secular 'enlightenment' takes place.
Madison, Washington, etal.: DONE! Huzzah for women's reproductive rights!
And that, children is how it happened. Even King Obama says so.
They lost the “science will prove we are correct” argument a long time ago. Genetics wiped out the “their body their choice” issue as well. Adoption wipes out the “I can’t be around it” arguments based on rape/incest, or otherwise unwanted/inconvenient children. Swiftly executing actual rapists (not just boyfriends or one night stands accused of rape) will prevent any future rapes from that person. I’d even take the opportunity to strengthen and ensure the sexual assault laws, so that homosexual rapists would be executed as well, not having to take into account whether the victim gets pregnant - as these cases of rape it doesn’t factor in).
The two decisions have nothing to do with each other legally. There are legal forms of homicide. Just because the state labels the act as the killing of a person doesn’t conflict with the fact that the Supreme Court says it’s legal. The issues are not related.
This is why incrimentalism is the way to win the war.
First you put in parental notification laws.
They procedure restrictions.
Then viability rules. (and invest in the science of fetal transplants and artificial wombs.)
and so on.
So you gradually take it down to rare.
all or nothing yields nothing but hyperbole.
Did the idiot court recognize that PP vs. Casey violated the RIGHT TO LIFE?!?!?!
Excuse me? How can an ADDITION to the CONSTITUTION be “un”constitutional??? That language doesn’t even work.
Any Oklahoma FREEPers out there able to explain this stuff to me?
“Excuse me? How can an ADDITION to the CONSTITUTION be “un”constitutional??? That language doesn’t even work.
Any Oklahoma FREEPers out there able to explain this stuff to me?
“
Exactly this is the height of arrogance telling the citizens and legislature that they don’t have the right to amend thier constitution.
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
They know that the personhood movement is the biggest threat to ultimately end abortion. If an unborn child is delcared a person, abortion becomes illegal. They can't have that, so they are putting the cart before the horse and blocking recognizing the unborn child as a person in order to protect abortion when the priority should be recognizing the unborn child and letting the abortion chips fall where they may (in the dump).
These judges can’t keep up with laws already on the books. The “Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212” defines the unborn as members of the human species, and recognizes the unborn as victims should a crime be committed in which they are harmed.
How is that any different to what this judge was ruling on? If a federal law like this exists, why is this even an issue? Or are crimes against the unborn justifiable when the mother is not also harmed, despite what the law says?
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.