Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Rights Leader: Expect Filibuster Unless Next Supreme Court Nominee Shows Support
AP via TBO ^ | 01/16/2003 | By David Espo The Associated Press

Posted on 01/16/2003 7:01:06 PM PST by KQQL

WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a prominent abortion rights organization on Thursday predicted a Senate filibuster if President Bush seeks to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy with a nominee who does not clearly support the court's 1973 ruling on the issue. "The burden of proof is on any nominee," said Kate Michelman, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It's the burden of that nominee to address constitutional freedoms and whether they indeed believe the court was right in recognizing a woman's right to choose."

"I fully expect that pro-choice senators will conduct a filibuster against any Supreme Court nominee" that does not express support for abortion rights, she added in an interview.

The White House declined comment on Michelman's remarks.

A spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the South Dakota lawmaker "feels it's vital that all judicial nominees be willing to faithfully respect the Constitution. That said, he will make a judgment on each individual case as it is presented to him."

Michelman made her comments several days before the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that guaranteed women the right to an abortion. Supporters of the opinion, as well as groups that hope to have it overturned in a future ruling, have scheduled a series of events to mark the date.

Groups opposed to abortion will hold their annual march in Washington on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the ruling, ending at the Supreme Court building. In addition, the GOP-controlled Congress is expected to vote in the coming months on legislation to ban one type of abortions, typically performed late in a woman's pregnancy.

Congress has twice passed legislation covering the procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured, but former President Clinton vetoed it both times. Bush has said he would sign it.

NARAL will hold a fund-raising dinner on Tuesday night, and all six announced Democratic presidential contenders are expected to speak. In addition, the group will start a political campaign next week to seek passage of abortion rights legislation in Congress.

With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, prospects for passage of such legislation are dim. Additionally, NARAL backed several Democratic Senate candidates who lost to GOP contenders last November. Thus supporters of abortion rights are likely to find themselves trying to fend off attempts by opponents and the Bush administration to curtail the ability of women to end their pregnancies.

Those struggles are likely to include judicial confirmation battles in the Senate, particularly if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Retirements are rarely announced in advance. But speculation, never in short supply, has increased since last fall's elections, when Republicans gained control of the Senate.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, for example, is 78, and missed December arguments at the court because of leg surgery. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, is 72. She and the chief justice were both appointed by Republican presidents.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; bush; fillibuster; frist; leadership; naral; senate; tomdaschle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 01/16/2003 7:01:06 PM PST by KQQL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Donate, Or Snuggles The Fabric Softener Bear Gets It!

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

2 posted on 01/16/2003 7:02:48 PM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Related thread:

Democratic Presidential Candidates Will Attend NARAL Event

3 posted on 01/16/2003 7:04:02 PM PST by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
This might be the biggest fight in the Senate in a generation. Or it could just be a whim. The stakes are high and I have my fingers crossed that the president will make a strong choice to go to the court.
4 posted on 01/16/2003 7:04:40 PM PST by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
She threatening the Senate Democrats, should any of them show any weakness towards legalized baby killing.

Where's she gonna go if a few abandon her and her ghoulish constituency?

5 posted on 01/16/2003 7:05:53 PM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Torie; Free the USA; deport; sampai; ambrose
@
6 posted on 01/16/2003 7:06:32 PM PST by KQQL (^@__*^)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
I realize this might be asking a little much, requiring some fortitude and all, but what would happen if a Senate Majority Leader were to say the next item on the floor of the Senate will be a vote on this or these judicial nominees, no matter how long this filibuster lasts.

Another thing would be to bottle up every piece of legislation the liberals want to bring to a vote.

I realize Frist may be one of the pro abortion types, but there ought to be some band of conservatives that can use the filibuster as a club as well as the socialists can.

7 posted on 01/16/2003 7:13:37 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dead
Where's she gonna go if a few abandon her and her ghoulish constituency?

She has no need to worry. As long as these keep rolling in, they are puppets on her string:


8 posted on 01/16/2003 7:16:57 PM PST by Skooz ($ Your ad can go here $)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: stevem
Senator Frist called PBA an abomination about a week ago. Check your facts.
9 posted on 01/16/2003 7:17:18 PM PST by Wait4Truth (Praying for rintense!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Skooz
She sings, they dance
10 posted on 01/16/2003 7:19:31 PM PST by bybybill (it`s just for the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wait4Truth
It wasn't a question of checking the facts. I simply didn't know. The thing that I was getting at is the Democrats are always threatening filibuster unless they get everything they want. It seems to me that can be dealt with by giving them nothing, zip, nada as long as they are filibustering such things as judicial nominees.
11 posted on 01/16/2003 7:24:47 PM PST by stevem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stevem
"I realize Frist may be one of the pro abortion types..."

He's not.

As prima facie evidence, do you honestly believe Tennessee would elect a pro-abort Senator?

Recall that Algore was proudly pro-life. When he was a Senator...

12 posted on 01/16/2003 7:29:22 PM PST by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stevem
I realize Frist may be one of the pro abortion types,

There are some wackos around here trying to leave that impression. Check out the National Right to Life Committee's page on Senator Frist:

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/bio/keyvotes/?id=540

He voted 100% pro-life on the key issues they cite.

13 posted on 01/16/2003 7:33:50 PM PST by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Maybe we just pull the conservative version of a david souter, you know, bring in a guy who intentionally misleads everyone, gets there vote, and then does his own thing. We could have our guy out and out lie, since the libs do it all the time, and just make sure we know he is a pro-lifer. I know this is very dishonest, just a thought though.
14 posted on 01/16/2003 7:44:41 PM PST by Sonny M (Confuse the left with scare tactics, use common sense, they fear it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
This here is one of those situations where the conservatives are going to encounter resistance regardless of who they nominate. Unless of course they nominate the good dr kavorkian or some other GNARL Meatgrinder advocate. So the Conservative majority might as well make courageous choices and fight for it in the name of 1st Amendment Free Speech rights. Strong opposition to the Leftist THOUGHT POLICE who want ideological purity in the judiciary.

If Mr Bush wants to take a commanding lead in the polls in 2004, he will stand up and fight against the Leftist Idealogues and stop trying to play to the moderate democrats. Every time Mr Bush gives quarter to the democrats they bludgeon him mercilessly, and this alienates the more right leaning members of the conservative groups. Moderate Libertarians (Im not one) and right leaning conservatives (I MIGHT be one) will RESPECT the president for taking a stand. Do the right thing Mr President, you know what that is and we will support you. Time for Frist to use his surgical skills to go for the jugular.

15 posted on 01/16/2003 8:00:50 PM PST by Samurai_Jack (Ive got a tag line around here somewhere...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL; Jeff Head; Salvation; Mr. Silverback; Kevin Curry
Bush, don't cave on the life issue. Give us our pro-life judges.
16 posted on 01/16/2003 8:32:37 PM PST by Sparta (Statism is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
A spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the South Dakota lawmaker "feels it's vital that all judicial nominees be willing to faithfully respect the Constitution. That said, he will make a judgment on each individual case as it is presented to him."

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about a woman's "right" to murder her unborn child? I don't believe that little bolshevik worm Daschole has ever read the Constitution.

17 posted on 01/16/2003 8:36:13 PM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child, on the basis of the principle that one is to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures.
18 posted on 01/16/2003 8:52:18 PM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
You are a disgusting piece of work.

A more workable solution in any event would be to convict and jail for a lo-o-o-o-o-o-n-g time any doctor, nurse or other person who assisted the woman to have an abortion.

It might be difficult to convict a punish a woman who was determined to end the life of her unborn child. But it would be quite appropriate to covict the Kevorkian vultures who are "crawling up her vagina" to kill the child.

19 posted on 01/16/2003 9:28:46 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
you're kidding, right?
20 posted on 01/16/2003 9:35:50 PM PST by luckymom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Partial birth abortion will be outlawed this year. Sen. Frist so indicated last Sunday on the morning shows. He said it was abhorent act without medical foundation.

If it passes it will contain punishment for the enablers of such an atrocity. They should make it retroactive and indict all the past PBA murderers. Just like we did with those involved in the 'holocaust'.

21 posted on 01/16/2003 10:14:28 PM PST by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: duckln
Ban PB Abortion.........
22 posted on 01/16/2003 10:16:01 PM PST by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I'm actually looking forward to the despotic bloody democrats trying to block a judgeship on grounds that abortion law might be changed ... it will mean political mass suicide for the ghouls, finally! We here in Tennessee made a big effort to point out Gore's ghoulish flip flop on life issues in the 2000 election run up. I'm of the opinion that his inability to even carry Tennessee was to some extent caused by the stark truth aired in the statewide newspapers via letters to the editor exposure. We can do nationally, if we try, and the democrat party will be a blood-drenched echo into obscurity.
23 posted on 01/16/2003 10:26:51 PM PST by MHGinTN (Americans ar not pro-abortion on demand, though they have yet to fully grasp the duplicity of choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Lets not forget that ALL humans have rights, born or unborn, and merely killing someone "privately" is still killing.

There might be a valid debate about precisely when life starts, but outside of that issue, killing is still killing.

24 posted on 01/16/2003 10:29:08 PM PST by Southack (Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Deep down they must know that there is no such constitutional right...
25 posted on 01/16/2003 10:32:00 PM PST by Fraulein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Yo homey. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, for example, is 78, and missed December arguments at the court because of leg surgery. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, is 72. She and the chief justice were both appointed by Republican presidents.

It never ceases to amaze me how the left-wing bias of the press prevents them from just telling the truth. John Paul Stevens, the most liberal justice on the Supreme Court, is 82 years old. Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another very liberal justice, is 72 and a cancer survivor.

O'Connor, while the same age as Ginsberg, is in very good health and will probably serve for many more years. The most likely retirees in the immediate future are Stevens, Ginsberg and Rehnquist, in that order.

I think that the most likely nominees will be Alberto Gonzales, Michael Luttig and John Ashcroft.

26 posted on 01/16/2003 10:35:58 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
It might be difficult to convict a punish a woman who was determined to end the life of her unborn child. But it would be quite appropriate to covict the Kevorkian vultures who are "crawling up her vagina" to kill the child.

Particularly since they're doing it for profit.

27 posted on 01/16/2003 10:37:12 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
"The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child, on the basis of the principle that one is to be secure in one's person from unreasonable searches and seizures."

The first sectioned that I bold-printed says it all. The Court simply decided -- with absolutely no Constitutional provision to support it.

As to the second suggestion: to even remotely insinuate that the 4th amendment clause against unreasonable search & seizure has ANYTHING to do with the destruction of unborn life in the womb would require a leap of logic. The founders meant nothing of the kind when that amendment was ratified and there is a huge burden of proof on your shoulders to prove otherwise.
28 posted on 01/16/2003 10:42:09 PM PST by Anti-Bolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Someone call up Robert H. Bork....I want him on the bench!!
29 posted on 01/16/2003 10:42:12 PM PST by Anti-Bolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KQQL
Don't give up hope, folks. This foolish excuse for a woman is full of hot air. I believe good things are going to happen on the Supreme Court.
30 posted on 01/16/2003 10:43:30 PM PST by No Dems 2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
The Court simply decided that there is a point in time before which the government cannot crawl up a woman's vagina in order to protect the life of her unborn child ... What a perplexing commentary! You admit that it is a child I want to protect, yet you appear to lobby for the right to hire a serial killer to slaughter that child on the grounds that a woman must stop someone from 'crawling up her vagina'. Astonishing duplicity on your part. What an amazing overt defense of serial killing int he name of rights ... ignoring, of ocurse, the inalienable right to life. [Are you Kim Gandy, by some stretch of chance?... NO! You're Kate Michelman!!]
31 posted on 01/16/2003 10:45:51 PM PST by MHGinTN (Americans aren't pro-abortion on demand, but have yet to fully grasp the ghoulis duplicity of choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
How do you propose to enforce a categorical ban on abortion? If you're serious about it, you'd follow the example of Ceaucescu in Romania.

In the name of a greater Romania, he abolished abortion. Every month, women were required to report for a pregnancy test under threat of criminal penalties. Women who were found to be pregnant were registered, and if they failed to carry to term, they faced a stiff jail term unless the doctors swore to it being a natural miscarriage.

Their wombs were enslaved to the State.

I'm sure if that mad dictator had had the technology, he'd have simply built axlotyl tanks out of the Romanian women and saved himself a lot of red tape and bureaucratic hassle.

A friend of mine escaped from Romania, I should ask her about this particular aspect of Ceaucescu's oppression.
32 posted on 01/17/2003 12:09:01 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bolshevik
As to the second suggestion: to even remotely insinuate that the 4th amendment clause against unreasonable search & seizure has ANYTHING to do with the destruction of unborn life in the womb would require a leap of logic. The founders meant nothing of the kind when that amendment was ratified and there is a huge burden of proof on your shoulders to prove otherwise.

How do you expect to ban abortion without a monthly government search of every fertile woman's uterus?

33 posted on 01/17/2003 12:10:46 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
I'm assuming the above is saracasm so I won't reply. :-)
34 posted on 01/17/2003 12:13:12 AM PST by Anti-Bolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bolshevik
Why do you think it's sarcasm?

The government can't know who to prosecute for having an abortion unless they know who's pregnant, can they?
35 posted on 01/17/2003 12:19:34 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Are you seriously contending that the only way the government can enforce any law is by storming into the home of every U.S. citizen?

If so, why are you only limiting this hypothesis to abortion?

Why haven't the feds broken down my door lookin for drugs, child porn or other illicit materials?
36 posted on 01/17/2003 12:43:33 AM PST by Anti-Bolshevik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bolshevik
We're not talking about "any law," we're talking about abortion.

If you're going to prohibit abortion from the moment of conception, then in order for the law to be the slightest bit meaningful, the government is going to have to know who's pregnant. That seems pretty obvious, doen't it? Otherwise, how would the government know to prosecute and jail a woman who had an abortion in her second month? My cousin is about five months pregnant and only starting to show.

And for that matter, I've read tales of young girls who hid their pregnancy (woman working IN A MATERNITY WARD, college student, baby discovered 17 days after birth, gave birth while aunt was in another room) from their parents and friends. How do propose to prosecute and jail people like that should they have an abortion?

Certainly unless there's mandatory monthly pregnancy tests of all fertile women under threat of criminal penalties, patterened after Romanian dictator Ceaucescu's policies, it should be easier to fool government agents than a teenager's own relatives and coworkers.

Why haven't the feds broken down your door looking for drugs, child porn, or other illicit materials, you ask? THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE SECURE IN ONE'S PERSON, PAPERS, AND EFFECTS FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH, or in other words, THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

Now take another look at post 31 from MHGinTN. What kind of government measures do you suppose he envisions?

37 posted on 01/17/2003 8:13:39 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mvpel; Anti-Bolshevik; Bryan; toenail; BibChr; jwalsh07
If you're serious about it, you'd follow the example of Ceaucescu in Romania. Typical socialist blindness and you fall for it as the 'only' alternative to legalized serial killing. What having a law fiat from the central authority (the SCOTUS, in matters of law) that makes it legal to kill the unborn, disenfranchising them in one mighty stroke is the corrosive effect it has on perspective of a free people ... 'if the SCOTUS says it's legal it must be okay to do it' ... and 42,000,000 individual lives are snuffed out over a 30 years period.

I'm serious about ending abortion slaughter as a means to deal with unwanted pregnancies, very serious. So serious that I respond to the outlandish black or white idiocy of people like you. It is apparent that you favor the 'rite' to hire a serial killer to terminate with extreme prejudice the most innocent individual human lives made vulnerable throught the disenfranchisement accomplished by the specious bench ruling of a societal engineering SCOTUS. You will, however, not be able to paint this complex set of issues as either or in your liberal bilge terms. And it is immediately insulting that you have only a onesided perspective on the right to life of these vulnerable little ones, a perspective that reflects your ignorance of men and their love for their children. You disgust me.

You have a skewed understanding of life that allows you only one sight, serial killers made licit to ensure 'a woman's right to choose murder, ignoring the humanity of the unborn' ... the right to hire a serial killer with impunity is not an empowering, enlightened policy. To understand this truth, you might take the time to read but a few of the horrible effects such killing in the womb has on women who've used your protected rite of slaughter to their unborn. But you can't allow even that enlightening commentary to reach your stone cold mind and heart. Disgusting.

Now take another look at post 31 from MHGinTN. What kind of government measures do you suppose he envisions? Having made that assertion, trying to allow only your putrifaction of belief to be the alternative to sanctioned serial killing, you expect Freepers to support your specious lickspittle? Hah! You have a shallow notion of Freerepublic. Your underwhelming mental prowess even failed to ask what I might envision before you tried to define my position, so you haven't a stitch of credibility with which to characterize me or my perspective on the issues, missy.

38 posted on 01/17/2003 8:50:10 AM PST by MHGinTN (Think about it: What kind of America would the despotic democrats mutate this Republic into? Eeek)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
So if you consider the notion that the government would have to know who was pregnant in order to know who had an abortion to be "outlandish, black or white, liberal bilge, insulting, onsesided, ignorant, disgusting, benighted, putrid, lickspittle idiocy," then how DO you propose to enforce the law?

I mean, it seems like a tautology that the government would have to know who's pregnant in order to figure out who might have had an abortion. I just don't see any way around it, but you apparently do. Take a break from hurling personal attacks at me and post it.

And in no case did I ignore the humanity of the unborn, or suggest that the slaughter of the unborn is anything but a horrendous tragedy that is eating away at the moral fiber of this nation.

But I consider the Romanian scenario of a strictly enforced ban on all abortion from the moment of conception and the resulting invasion and enslavement of the Romanian womb to the service of the State to be an even greater tragedy.

There is a BALANCE to be struck here. You think that I'm talking in black or white terms, but what I'm attempting to point out to you is the black evil represented by the far opposite end of the "abortion on demand" scenario that you and I both righteously oppose.

Under what circumstances would you consider abortion to be acceptable? If you consider abortion to be unacceptable and criminal under ANY circumstances, then how do you see any alternative to the Ceaucescu approach except unconstitutional selective enforcement?
39 posted on 01/17/2003 10:18:27 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: mvpel; Remedy; Caleb1411; Askel5; Bryan; toenail; BibChr; Polycarp; lainde; Victoria Delsoul; ...
You have a big problem starting your specious 'tautologies' I see : So if you consider the notion ... You apparently think that is the starting point, which is typical of a closet societal engineer. I don't start at such ridiculous notions; I would move way away from such foolishness. Again you've tried to frame an argument as a strawman you've rehearse to defeat. Play with yourself all you wish. When you grow sufficiently to ask before assuming someone else's position, then perhaps a constructive discussion will follow.

I mean, it seems like a tautology that the government would have to know who's pregnant in order to figure out who might have had an abortion. I just don't see any way around it, but you apparently do. Here's your syllogism applied to another topic, to expose the hidden foolishness in your starting assumption : 'The government would have to know who owns loaded guns in order to figure out who might kill someone.' Applied to a population demographic such as Los Angeles, the idiocy of the government (in a free Republic) recording every citizen for gun ownership and ammunition ownership AND loaded gun ownership, AND ... the series can be extended ad infinitum, but it still makes a strawman argument in a free Republic if applied to gender of fertile members, sexual activity of the members, and ...

Your lack of grasp on the fundamental issues belies your specious assumptions of women and men, the society as it now functions, and the fundamental declarations of our founding documents.

I'm attempting to point out to you is the black evil represented by the far opposite end I don't start at 'an end' of some artificially framed line of argument of the "abortion on demand" scenario that you and I both righteously oppose. I remain unconvinced of your sincerity (sincerity means free from hypocrisy).

Under what circumstances would you consider abortion to be acceptable? Finally, we get to the meat and means for discussion, fellow freeper. From the standpoint of a woman terminating a pregnancy, there are two criteria :1) the unborn child is dead or near enough to death that the woman's life is at stake; 2) a tubal or non-uterine pregnancy that cannot be altered in such a way as to continue life support for the as yet unaddressed member in the issue, and such pregnancy endangers the woman's life; 3) ... there is no three from my perspective. Just so you'll know, I base this criteria on the unalienable right to life already existing, that of the second individual human life in the mix, the child.

The issues are viewed, in my belief system, from the standpoint of life support for an already existing individual human life. As such I am against embryonic exploitation, whether in vitro or in utero. I'm against exploitation upon the body parts of a living individual human life when that exploitation requires the arbitrary termination of life support. Period.

The ramifications of my position ought be evident to you or anyone reading this exchange. Our society will have to undergo a paradigm shift in perspective, from ignoring the humanity of the conceived individual human life, to making whatever necessary alterations in societal and personal means necessary to choose life support, in and out of the womb, from conception to old age.

I don't satrt with spectres of a police state where these issues are involved, rather I choose to start with efforts to bring about a paradigm shift in our dealings with the nascent life and the woman so heroic that she will make possible the few months of life support for the innocent individual conceived in her womb ... and if she is unable or unwilling to continue life support postpartum, a noble society is obligated to provide that life support.

Caring for a crib-bound infant is far more difficult and confining to a lifestyle than providing support for an individual on life support in a womb entered by no choice from the individual human growing there. As one poster has noted, 'the consequences of a woman and man's choices ought not be alleviated through sanction for hiring a serial killer to terminate the totally innocent thrid individual human existing without a choice.' Killing an innocent individual to avoid unwanted consequences for personal actions (actions by consenting parties or by criminal action by one party) is not enlightened social policy, in my belief system.

Take a break from hurling personal attacks at me and post it. I attack idiocy when it arises to endanger the unalienable right to life of the little ones. You'll grow to understand that about me, if you remain around FR for much longer. I've offered the truth of my perspective, now how about yours?

40 posted on 01/17/2003 4:21:15 PM PST by MHGinTN (Think about it: What kind of America would the despotic democrats mutate this Republic into? Eeek)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M; afuturegovernor; Kevin Curry; MHGinTN; Luis Gonzalez
Maybe we just pull the conservative version of a david souter, you know, bring in a guy who intentionally misleads everyone, gets there vote, and then does his own thing. We could have our guy out and out lie, since the libs do it all the time, and just make sure we know he is a pro-lifer. I know this is very dishonest, just a thought though.

His name is Alberto Gonzales. Among those who discuss such matters regularly, Gonzales and Souter are known as "stealth" candidates. They sort of sneak in under the radar. Gonzales is current White House counsel but when Dubya was governor of Texas, Gonzales was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

The reason he's a "stealth" candidate is that he was the author of a Texas Supreme Court decision that appears to the untrained eye to be a bold pro-choice landmark opinion. But Gonzales was simply interpreting current law as it's written, without addressing its constitutionality.

41 posted on 01/17/2003 4:32:02 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
Under what circumstances would you consider abortion to be acceptable? If you consider abortion to be unacceptable and criminal under ANY circumstances, then how do you see any alternative to the Ceaucescu approach except unconstitutional selective enforcement?

Authorities will enforce an abortion ban in the same manner they enforce bans on underage drinking, illegal drug use, drunk driving, etc. There are quite a few people who will drive home from the bar tonight while intoxicated. It is Friday night after all. Not all of them will be pulled over by the police. But some will, and they'll go to jail, and there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.

And let me assure you that there are millions of little teeny boppers out there getting drunk and getting stoned, listening to some really bad music cranked up loud. Not all of the little parties will be raided by the police tonight. But some will, and the little teeny boppers at those little parties will go to jail. Once again, there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.

This is not selective enforcement. This is accepting the things you can't change, taking action to change the things you can, and having the wisdom to know the difference.

42 posted on 01/17/2003 4:39:24 PM PST by Bryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bolshevik
He's way too old now.
43 posted on 01/17/2003 4:39:41 PM PST by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bryan
"O'Connor, while the same age as Ginsberg, is in very good health and will probably serve for many more years. The most likely retirees in the immediate future are Stevens, Ginsberg and Rehnquist,...

I believe O'Connor has had breast cancer.

44 posted on 01/17/2003 4:42:18 PM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Bryan
I hope your right. I don't know that much about the possible Supreme Court appointees. Its in President Bush's hands. He has the chance to be a great hero among the political right if his selection is a excellent one. It is the most important domestic policy action he will take.
45 posted on 01/17/2003 4:46:30 PM PST by afuturegovernor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: afuturegovernor
Abortion is not on Bush's short list of objectives:

1. Win the war
2. Revive the economy
3. Leave no child behind
4. Appoint jurists who will interpret the law, not make it
5. Restore respect for the office of POTUS

Anti-abortionists don't have the votes.

Abortion has replaced social security as the third rail of American politics.





46 posted on 01/17/2003 4:46:38 PM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Senate Is to Advise And Consent, Not Obstruct and Delay
47 posted on 01/17/2003 4:48:32 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right

NARAL Goes 1-for-20 in Election
By David Freddoso (c) Human Events, 2002

In spite of nationwide victories for pro-life candidates, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) President Kate Michelman issued a statement November 6 that "it would be a serious mistake for politicians to read yesterday's results as a mandate to insert themselves in women's personal choices."

Michelman is in denial. Earlier this year, NARAL picked its 20 "key" House and Senate races. In each, it supported its candidate (all of whom were Democrats) with cash and endorsements. Only one "key" NARAL candidate-Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa)-won. Ironically, that was over a pro-abortion Republican, outgoing Rep. Greg Ganske.

NARAL likely would have gone 1-for-21, but it did not change its web page to endorse Walter Mondale (D.) for Senate in Minnesota after the death of Paul Wellstone.

Here are NARAL's 20 "key" races, its endorsements and pre-election commentary. The source: NARAL's web site, www.naral.org.

State/District

NARAL Candidate

Opponent

NARAL Comments

Outcome

Ga. Senate

Max Cleland (D)

Saxby Chambliss (R)

"Cleland is rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL."

Chambliss, 53%-46%

Ga. 11

Roger Kahn (D)

Phil Gingrey (R)

". . .anti-choice State Senator Phil Gingrey. . ."

Gingrey, 52%-48%

Colo. Senate

Tom Strickland (D)

Wayne Allard (R)

"Strickland has made his pro-choice stand an important centerpiece of his campaign."

Allard, 51%-46%

Colo. 04

Stan Matsunaka (D)

Marilyn Musgrave (R)

"Matsunaka plans to make choice a key issue in the race."

Musgrave, 55%-42%

Colo. 07

Mike Feeley (D)

Bob Beauprez (R)

"Beauprez. . .supports a ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest."

Beauprez, 47%-47%

Ia. Senate

Tom Harkin (D)

Greg Ganske (R)

Harkin is a "true leader on choice"

Harkin, 54%-44%

Mich. 09

David Fink (D)

Joe Knollenberg (R)

"David Fink is running [against] anti-choice U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R)."

Knollenberg, 58%-40%

Mich. 10

Carl Marlinga (D)

Candice Miller (R)

"Choice will be a defining issue between these candidates."

Miller, 63%-36%

Mo. Senate

Jean Carnahan (D)

Jim Talent (R)

"Anti-choice . . . will challenge Carnahan. . ."

Talent, 50%-49%

N.H.

Jean Shaheen (D)

John Sununu (R)

"Governor Shaheen [is] a former NARAL-NH volunteer."

Sununu, 51%-47%

N.H. 01

Martha Fuller Clark (D)

Jeb Bradley (R)

"[Clark] is a true pro-choice leader in the New Hampshire House."

Bradley, 58%-39%

N.J. 05

Anne Sumers (D)

Scott Garrett (R)

"Pro-choice Anne Sumers . . .will contrast with Garrett's socially conservative record."

Garrett, 60%-38%

N.J. 07

Tim Carden (D)

Mike Ferguson (R)

"Pro-choice . . . Tim Carden is challenging anti-choice U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson."

Ferguson, 58%-41%

N.C. Senate

Erskine Bowles (D)

Elizabeth Dole (R)

"Dole's position . . .strongly opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment."

Dole,54%-45%

Ore. Senate

Bill Bradbury (D)

Gordon Smith (R)

"Smith's staunch opposition to abortion rights is out of step with pro-choice Oregonians."

Smith, 56%-40%

Pa. 06

Dan Wofford (D)

Jim Gerlach (R)

". . .a 'bellwether' district. . ."

Gerlach, 51%-49%

Pa. 15

Ed O'Brien (D)

Pat Toomey (R)

"Congressional Democrats are so excited about O'Brien . . . "

Toomey, 57%-43%

Tex. Senate

Ron Kirk (D)

John Cornyn (R)

"Pro-choice Texans are galvanized behind Ron Kirk."

Cornyn, 55%-43%

Tex. 05

Ron Chapman (D)

Jeb Hensarling (R)

"Anti-choice Jeb Hensarling (R), a former aide to anti-choice U.S. Senator Phil Gramm. . ."

Hensarling, 58%-40%

S.C. Senate

Alex Sanders (D)

Lindsey Graham (R)

"Sanders is a former judge with a solid pro-choice record."

Graham, 54%-44%


48 posted on 01/17/2003 4:50:05 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right

Statute

House Action

Senate Action

President's Action

Unborn Victims of Violence Act HR 503 S 480

Passed 4/26/01 Vote 252 - 172

Bottled up by Senator Daschle

Would Have Supported

Human Cloning Ban HR 2505 S 1899

Passed 7/31/01 Vote 265 - 162

Killed July 2002 by Senator Daschle

Would Have Supported

Ban on Abortions in Military Facilities

5/20/02 Vote 215 - 162 Supporting Ban

6/21/02 Vote 40 - 52 Did Not Support Ban

Supported Ban

Child Custody Protection Act HR 476

Passed 4/17/02 Vote 260 - 161

Bottled up by Senator Daschle

Would Have Supported

Born Alive Infant Protection Act HR 2175

Passed 3/12/02 Vote 380 - 15

Passed 7/18/02 Voice Vote

Signed Bill 8/05/02

Partial Birth Abortion Ban HR 4965

Passed 8/06/02 Vote 274 - 151

Bottled up by Senator Daschle

Is Supportive

 

Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...

  • When Do Human Beings Begin? -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, former NIH bench research biochemist Dianne Irving demonstrates the scientific fact that the lives of human beings--and human persons--begin at conception.
  • Personhood Begins At Conception -- by Peter Kreeft, Ph.D. Professor Kreeft explains what exactly a "person" is and why the various philosophical positions which deny that the unborn child is a person are themselves inadequate.
  • Is the Unborn Less Than Human? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith lays out the scientific facts surrounding human development and explains why it does not make sense to argue that a human being is created at implantation, quickening, or birth.
  • When Does a Human Become a Person? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. Continuing the previous essay, Dr. Beckwith demonstrates why other functional criteria given for personhood--such as sentience, brain development, and viability--are inadequate. He then refutes the "gradualist" position, which incorrectly asserts that the unborn becomes more and more human as the pregnancy progresses. Finally, he discusses the positions of various abortion and infanticide advocates like James Rachels, Mary Wollenkott, and Michael Tooley.
  • Does Life Begin At Implantation? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Dr. Beckwith addresses the phenomena of monozygotic twinning, hydatiform moles, choriocarcinoma, blighted ova, cloning, and fertilization wastage. He then shows how these phenomena fail to disprove the position that human life begins at conception.
  • Scientific and Philosophical Expertise: An Evaluation of the Arguments on Personhood -- by Dianne N. Irving, Ph.D. In this essay, biochemist Dianne Irving argues that positions which assert that early human embryos are not persons are based on inadequate philosophical principles and faulty scientific data.
  • The Human Rational Soul in the Early Embryo -- by Stephen Heaney, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Heaney discusses the various theories of "ensoulment" that permeate philosophical (and theological) discussions on abortion.
  • A Survey of Arguments for Immediate versus Delayed Animation -- by Scott Sullivan. In this essay, Thomist Philosopher Scott Sullivan critically analyzes the theory of mediate animation.
  • The Tiniest Humans -- an interview with the renowned geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the father of modern embryology, Sir Albert William Liley

Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...

  • The Bodyright Argument: A Pro-life Response -- By Brian D. Parks. In this essay, your webmaster gives a comprehensive analysis of the bodyright argument, including a discussion of the various pro-abortion analogies to pregnancy, and a refutation of the positions of Philosophers Judith Thomson, Susan Mattingly, Patricia Jung, Frances Kamm, Margaret Little and others.
  • The Changing Pro-Life Argument: Does the Humanity of the Unborn Matter Anymore? -- by Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Beckwith introduces and refutes the famous argument from "bodily rights".
  • A Woman's Right Over Her Body? -- by Stephen Schwarz, Ph.D. In an excerpt from his book The Moral Question of Abortion, Dr. Schwarz addresses arguments in defense of abortion that are based on a woman's "right" to control her own body.
  • Unplugging a Bad Analogy -- by Doris Gordon. In this essay, Doris Gordon, the National Director of Libertarians For Life, refutes a famous argument put forth by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson.
  • Abortionists, Violinists and Burglars -- by Christopher Kaczor, Ph.D. In this essay, Professor Kaczor addresses Thomson's arguments from a different angle.
  • A Fetus is NOT a Parasite -- by Thomas L. Johnson, Ph.D. In this piece, chordate embryologist Dr. Thomas L. Johnson attacks the popular misconception that a human fetus is the equivalent of a biological parasite.
  • Begging the Question -- by Edwin Viera. In this brief essay, Dr. Viera explains why the statement "a woman has a right to control her own body" begs the basic question in the abortion debate--is she only affecting her own body when she aborts?

Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...

  • I Was Once a Fetus -- By Alexander Pruss. In this essay, mathematician and philosopher Dr. Alexander Pruss offers an identity based argument against abortion.
  • The Real Problem with Abortion -- by Mark McNeil. In this essay, Mark McNeil examines two competing positions on the issue--the position of moderate pro-life advocate Don Marquis and the position of liberal abortion advocate Mary Anne Warren. McNeil concludes that neither position sufficiently explains why it is wrong to kill human beings, and introduces his own viewpoint.

Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ...

The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible.

Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43).


49 posted on 01/17/2003 4:51:11 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
Pro-life majorities are overwhelming

Janet Folger launches Faith2Action with national poll, ad campaign
Faith 2 Actionreleased on Jan. 15 an eye-opening national poll, conducted by well-respected Wirthlin International, that shows the pro-life movement is the strongest it has ever been! The American public was asked: "Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who would uphold laws that restore legal protection for unborn children?" The result? An astounding 66 percent -- a full two thirds -- said YES!

Even more than that, seven out of 10 surveyed said they to restore legal protection to protect unborn children. With the American people behind us, now is the time to start winning the cultural war by working TOGETHER with the most effective organizations on the side of faith and family now linked together in one place: faith2action.org.

50 posted on 01/17/2003 4:53:38 PM PST by Remedy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson