Except that it doesn’t actually work that way in the long run. Because, your approach, the NRTL approach, the “pro-life” “Republican” approach, surrenders the core, indispensable principle of equal protection under the law, right up right, assuring your continued defeat. We now have forty years of 20-20 hindsight, of harsh political and legal experience, to prove it.
How can a soldier who has stripped himself buck naked and thrown away all of his weapons and all of his ammo be believed when he tells you he is going to fight and defeat the enemy?
To hell with the Supreme Court. To hell with all the courts, if they won’t keep the first obligation of their oath, which is to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable rights of the individual. If they don’t agree with the cornerstone principles of the republic, impeach and remove them. If they ignore every clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, all of which are obscenely violated by the practice of human abortion, throw them out.
“Chip away at Roe”? What does that even mean? Roe is a forty year old immoral, unconstitutional (Republican) court opinion in a particular case. Ignore it, just like you ignore Dred Scott. It is a nullity. It is void.
“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.” — Alexander Hamilton
And remember, we’re not even talking about laws, when it comes to Roe. It’s a court opinion. Zippedy-do-dah.
No, what we really need, desperately, are executives and legislators who will keep THEIR OWN OATHS, regardless of what anyone else in any other branch does. Only then will we stop this holocaust.
The judicial supremacist fallacy is the most destructive doctrine extant in this once Free Republic. Nothing that I know of is doing more to extinguish our constitutional form of republican self-government.
Not only is the practice of human abortion NOT “the law of the land,” it COULD NOT BE the law of a land premised as this one is in a clear understanding and acknowledgment of the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
“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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...” — The Declaration of Independence
Every elected executive, every legislator, every judge, that allows the practice of human abortion to continue anywhere in America is in gross violation of their sacred oath of office. They have, as our constitutional republic’s founders charged against King George III in our nation’s charter, the Declaration of Independence, “abdicated government here by declaring us out of [their] protection and waging war against us.”
“Good and wise men, in all ages...have supposed, that the Deity, from the relations, we stand in, to Himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensably, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature, which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, is, of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid, derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.” — William Blackstone
God says “You shall not murder.” The U.S. Constitution says “No person shall be deprived of life” without a fair trial on a capital offense. That is the supreme law of the land. It’s not optional. It is imperative. Incremental abortion bills say “You may murder,” and “Some persons may be deprived of life without a fair trial on a capital offense.” As for me and my house, we stand with God and the Constitution concerning this most fundamental matter of principle.
Yeah, blocking progress to end abortion sure is working like a charm. Babies can be aborted until right before birth, but you’re too “pure” to support a bill that at least bans abortion after 20 weeks, because in your imaginary world you are saving babies’ lives. Well, guess what, you are doing the abortionists’ dirty work by being so stubborn.
Our ultimate goal is a constitutional amendment declaring, in words that even liberals can understand, that human life begins at conception, as do protections afforded to “persons” under the Constitution. (Yes, our ultimate goal needs to be a constitutional amendment, because citing of constitutional provisions that (I agree) should be understood to prohibit abortion has been totally ineffectual at convincing courts on the subject.) But we don’t have 2/3 of each house of Congress who woul;d be willing to support such a constitutional amendment—not even close. *Of course* we need to keep fighting to achieve that, but trying to derail any effort to chip away at abortion does not help us achieve our ultimate goal, and all it does is permit the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies who otherwise would have been saved (and whose birth likely would have converted their mothers and other loved ones to the pro-life cause).
Or are you suggesting that it would be *good* to increase the number of unborn children who are murdered in a naked attempt to showcase the barbarity of abortion? Those babies are just eggs that you need to break for your omelet? What gives you the right to sacrifice innocent human lives for the greater good? Did the 0.03% of the vote that you got in the 2012 presidential election give you a mandate to overrule millions of pro-life Americans and to sentence to death unborn children who were conceived more than 20 weeks ago?
You’re like a spoiled brat who wants someone to take him from Boston to San Diego so he refuses rides from people willing to take him to St. Louis. Don’t be so stubborn: hitch the ride to St. Louis, and it will be easier to find transport to San Diego from there.
““Chip away at Roe”? What does that even mean? Roe is a forty year old immoral, unconstitutional (Republican) court opinion in a particular case. Ignore it, just like you ignore Dred Scott. It is a nullity. It is void.”
The incrementalist strategy would work to end abortion, if we actually tried to pass laws that will be upheld by the courts and set new precedents on which we can build. Having SCOTUS rule that the “right to abortion” (sic) does not prohibit the government from banning abortion without an exception for the “health of the mother” would be a HUGE accomplishment that would be the beginning of the end for Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS inched towards that when it upheld the federal ban Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, but in that case the Court based its decision partly on the legislative finding that that particular procedure it made no difference to the health of the mother whether the baby was delivered alive or killed during delivery; this would be a clear precedent that the state interest in protecting human life outweighs the woman’s “right” to claim that she wants to abort to protect her “health.”